Skip to main content

Full text of "Reformed Presbyterian Catechism"

See other formats


The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism 
An Analysis of the Covenanting Reformation Ideals 

William Roberts DD 
NY, 1853 



Contents 

Introduction 4 

Section I 

Christ's Mediatorial Dominion in general 4 

Section II 
Christ's exclusive Headship over the Church 13 

Section III 
The Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the Word of God in the Church 29 

Section IV 
Civil Government the Moral Ordinance of God 35 

Section V 
Christ's Headship over the Nations 41 

Section VI 

The Subjection of the Nations to God and to Christ 47 

Section VII 

The Word, or Revealed Will of God, the Supreme Law in the State 81 

Section VIII 

The Duty of Nations, in their National Capacity, to acknowledge and support the 
True Religion 104 

Section IX 

The Spiritual Independence of the Church of Christ 118 

Section X 

The Right and Duty of Dissent from an immoral Constitution 

of Civil Government 127 



Section XI 

The Duty of Covenanting, and the Permanent Obligations of 

Religious Covenants 134 

Section XII 

The Application of these Principles to the Governments, 

where Reformed Presbyterians reside, in the form of a Practical Testimony 152 

Section XII 

Application of the Testimony to the British Empire 179 

Conclusion 187 



A CATECHETICAL EXPOSITION OF THE PECULIAR AND MORE 
PROMINENT PRINCIPLES Of The Reformed Presbyterian Church 



INTRODUCTION. 

Question. How many are the peculiar and more prominent principles of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church? 
Answer. TWELVE. 
Q. What are these? 
A. The doctrines of 

1. Christ's Mediatorial Dominion in general. 

2. his Exclusive Headship over the Church. 

3. The supremacy and ultimate authority of the word God in the church. 

4. Civil government a moral ordinance of God. 

5. Christ's headship over the nations. 

6. The subjection of the nations to God and to Christ. 

7. The word of God the supreme rule in the state. 

8. The duty of nations to acknowledge and support the true Christian religion. 

9. The spiritual independence of the Church of Christ. 

10. The right and duty of dissent from an immoral constitution of civil government. 

11. The duty of social covenanting, and the permanent obligation of religious covenants. 

12. The application of these doctrines in the form of a practical testimony, to the civil 
governments where Reformed Presbyterians reside. 

Q. What is meant by "peculiar" principles? 

A. Those which distinguish Reformed Presbyterians from other Christian denominations. 

Q. What is meant by " prominent " principles? 

A. Those which, though hold by some other denominations, are not made practically a 

part of their testimony. 

SECTION 1. 



On Christ's Mediatorial Dominion in General 

Q. What is the import of the title mediator given to Jesus Christ? 

A. It is all official title, which exhibits Christ as transacting between God and man for 
man's salvation; and in the discharge of the functions of this office, he acts 111 the capa- 
city of the Father's servant. 1 Tim. ii. 5. There is but one mediator between God and man, 
Jesus Christ. Heb. xii. 24. To Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. Isa. xlii. 1 . Behold 
my servant whom I uphold : applied to Christ, Matt. xii. 18. Isa. liii. 11. "My righteous 
servant." 



Q. What is the dominion of Christ? 

A. The authority, or unlimited power, which he possesses over the creatures. 

Q. What is his mediatorial dominion? 

A. Not that which essentially belongs to him as God, but that with which he has been 

officially invested as the Messiah, by the authoritative act of the Father. 

Q. What is the essential dominion of Christ? 

A. It is that which pertains to him as the Son of God, a Person in the Godhead, 'and is the 

same with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost, original, inherent, and underived. 

Q. His mediatorial dominion is, then, that which was delegated, conferred by gift, 
bestowed by the Father, in short, " the government" which was " laid upon his shoul- 
ders,"-that " power" which was " given him in heaven and in earth" ? 
A. Yes. Because, as the Son of God essentially viewed, he cannot be the recipient of a 
gift, "but is equal in power and glory with the Father: ' 

Q. Do his essential and mediatorial kingdom differ in matter or extent ? 
A. No. They are really the same, both in matter and extent; the difference consists in this : 
The kingdom over which he, as the Son of God, rules by inherent and original right, he is, 
as mediator, authorized to manage and direct, for a new end, namely, the salvation of 
men, and the best interests of the church. 

Q. By whom was Christ appointed to this mediatorial dominion ? 

A. By the Father. Ps. ii. 0. "Yet have 1 set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." Luke xxii. 

29. "My Father hath appointed unto me a kingdom." See John v. 20, 27. 

Q. When was he appointed ? . 

A From all eternity. Prov. viii. 23. "I was act up from everlasting." See Ps. ii. 6, 7. Mai. v. 

2. 

Q. In what transaction ? 

A. In the covenant of grace. Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4. "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I 
have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy 
throne to all generations." 

Q. What is this covenant ? 

A. It comprises the whole scheme agreed upon by the divine persons for the salvation of 

fallen man. 

Q. In what capacity did the Father make this appointment ? 

A. As the representative of Deity in the economy of redemption. 

Q. Did not this appointment proceed from the Father necessarily and originally by an 

inherent right? 

A. No. This would be at variance with the perfect equality subsisting among the divine 



persons. 

Q. Were the divine persons designated to their respective economical characters And 
offices by a sovereign Act of the divine will, essentially considered ? 
A. Yes. For this presupposed act preserves inviolate the essential equality of the persons 
in the Godhead. 

Q. Has not all power and authority been, by this sovereign act of the divine will, 
economically vested in the Father ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Does this appointment of the Son proceed formally from this economical authority 
with which the Father is thus invested? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Is it not necessary to suppose that the Son was designated to his mediatory office and 
dominion by the above mentioned sovereign act of the divine will ? 
A. Yes. For thisview of the case preserves inviolate the voluntariness of the Son in the 
whole transaction, as well as his equality with the Father. 

Q. What the first source of proof of the reality of Christ's mediatorial dominion? 
A. Several interesting prefigurations of his royal authority. 

Q. Was not Melchizedec one of these instructive types of Christ's dominion ? 

A. Yes. He was a distinguished type of Christ. Ps ex. 4. "Thou art a priest for ever after 

the order of Melchizedec." 

Q. How is it evident that he was a type of Christ's royal dominion ? 

A. Ill three ways. 1. The import of his name, Heb. vii. 2. " King of righteousness." 
Beautifully prefiguring Christ as the Sun of righteousness-the sceptre of whose kingdom 
is a right sceptre. 2. His designation "King of Salem," Heb. vii. 2. That is " King of 
Peace"-fitly representing Him who is designated the Prince of Peace. 3. His combining in 
his own person the royal and sacerdotal offices, he was a royal priest-a sacerdotal King, 
and suitable type of Him who, exercising his power upon the footing of his purchase, sits 
"a priest upon his throne." 

Q. Was Moses an eminent type of Christ in his mediatorial dominion ? 
A. Yes. As "King in Jeshuran". Jeshuran, which signifies "upright," refers to the people 
of Israel, who were required and understood to possess this character. The Jewish 
legislator later thus typified Him, who, being "King in Zion," rules among the upright in 
heart, and governs them in integrity and truth. 

Q. Was David another of these royal types ? 

A. Yes. Particularly in his signal overthrow of Goliath the vaunting champion of the 
Philistines, in his valour in war, and wisdom and humanity in peace, in the principles and 
character of his administration, in which he led his people, according to the integrity of 



his heart, and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands, and in the covenant of royalty 
he made with him and his seed forever. 

Q. Wherein does David's typical character most remarkably appear ? 
A. 1 . In the fact that the Messiah himself is repeatedly spoken of by the prophets under 
the very name of David Jer xxx. 9. "They shall serve the Lord their God, and their King, 
whom I will raise up unto them." Hos iii, 5 "Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, 
and seek the Lord their God and David their King; and shall fear Lord and his goodness 
in the latter days." See also Ezek xxxiv. 24. 2. In the fact that Christ in his incarnation 
described as recovering the throne of David his father according to the flesh. Luke i. 32, 
33. 

Q. Was not Solomon the most illustrious type of Christ's mediatorial dominion ? 
A. Yes. In the wisdom of his administration-the extent of territory over which he reigned- 
the wealth of his subjects and the peacefulness of his reign, He was a remarkable of the 
Messiah-so much so that in Song iii. 11, Christ is designated by his name, "Go forth ye 
daughters of Zion behold King Solomon with the crown wherewith his crowned him in 
the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart." 

Q. What is the second source of proof of the re Christ's mediatorial rule ? 
A. Prophecy is a fruitful source of evidence in favour of his royalty. 

Q. Which is the first proof from this source? 

A. The very first prediction, Gen. iii. 15. "It," the seed of the woman, "shall bruise thy 
head," is conceived in terms which allude to the ancient mode by which victorious kings 
expressed their conquests, namely, by placing their feet upon the necks of their 
vanquished foes. 

Q. Which is the second proof from prophecy ? 

A. The language of the patriarch Jacob, Gen. xlix. 10. "The sceptre shall not depart from 
Judah, nor a lawgiver front between his feet until Shiloh come," clearly imports that, on 
Christ, at his coming, shall devolve that judicial and legislative authority which had been 
previously exercised by others. 

Q. Which is the third evidence from this source ? 

A. The prophecy of Balaam, Num. xxiv. 17. "There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a 

sceptre (the emblem of regal power) shall rise out of Israel." 

Q. Which is the, fourth proof from prophecy ? 

A. The declaration of David in the second psalm, "Yet have I set my King upon my holy 

hill of Zion." Applied to Christ, Acts iv. 25, 20. 

Q. Which is the fifth proof? 

A. The forty-fifth psalm, which undoubtedly refers to the Messiah, and in which the royal 
character is sustained throughout: verses 1, 3, 6. "I speak of the things which I have made 
touching the King-gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy 



majesty. Thy throne, God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right 
sceptre." Applied to Christ, Heb. i. 8. 

Q. Which is the sixth proof, among many others which may be adduced from prophecy? 
A. The forty-seventh psalm, which undoubtedly refers to the Lord Jesus in his ascension 
from the mount of Olives, " God is gone up with a shout, " and in which also the regal 
character is sustained throughout: verses 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, &c. "The Lord most high is terrible; 
he is a great King over all the earth-he shall subdue the people under us, and the nations 
under our feet; sing praises unto our King, for God is the King of all the earth ; God 
reigneth over the heathen ; God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. 

Q. Do not the titles given to Christ afford another source of proof in favour of his 

mediatorial dominion ? 

A. Yes. They afford ample and conclusive testimony. 

Q. Which is the first title? 

A. He is designated "Lord" Acts ii. 11, "God hath made that same Jesus whom you have 

crucified, both Lord and Christ" 

Q. Which is the second title ? 

A. Leader and Commander. Is. lv. 4, "I have given him for a witness to the people ; a 

Leader and Commander to the people." 

Q. Which is the third title ? 

A He is entitled Judge. Is. xxxiii. 22, "The Lord is our Judge." 

Q. Which is the fourth title ? 

A. He is denominated a Ruler. Mic. v. 2, "Out of thee, (Bethlehem Ephratah) shall he 

come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel." 

Q. Which is his fifth title ? 

A. He is called the " Captain of the Hosts of the Lord." Josh, v. 14. 

Q. Which is his sixth title ? 

A. "Prince of the kings of the earth ;" "King of kings." Rev. i. 5, xvii. 14, xix. 16, "Jesus 
Christ, the Prince of the kings of the earth, -the Lamb is Lord of lords, and King of kings,- 
he hath on his vesture and thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords." 

Q. Does not Christ himself claim this dominion ? 

A. Yes. John xviii. 37. "Thou sayest, (Pilate,) I am a king. To this end was I born." 

Q. Does not the Father acknowledge his claim ? 

A. Yes. Ps. xxi. 3, Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11, "Thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head." 
"Wherefore God also bath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above 
every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that 



Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
Father." 

Q. Do not angels proclaim his sovereignty? 

A. Yes. Luke i. 31-33, Rev. v. 11, 12. Gabriel thus proclaims his glory: "He shall be 
great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest ; and the Lord God shall give unto him 
the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of 
his kingdom there shall be no end." " And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels 
saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, 
and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." 

Q. Did not the wise men of the east recognize his royalty, and perform an act of homage? 
A. Yes. They proclaimed him "King of the Jews," and unfolding their gifts, laid them at 
his feet,. Matt. ii. 2. 

Q. Did not Nathaniel witness this good confession? 

A. Yes. He confessed he was " the King of Israel." John. i. 49. 

Q. Does not Paul make the like confession? 

A. Yes. He proclaims him "the King eternal." 1 Tim. i. 17. 

Q. Do not his enemies proclaim his great dominion ? 

A. Yes. The Jewish multitude rent the air with their shouts as he entered into Jerusalem, 
crying, "Hosanna! Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord!" 
The Roman soldiers unwittingly bore their part as they bowed the knee before him, and 
mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And Pontius Pilate inscribed upon his 
cross the unalterable title, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews," Jno. xix. 12,-a title 
which was, perhaps, the principal means of conveying to the malefactor that knowledge 
of the Saviour's character which led to his Conversion. 

Q. Are not, royal appendages assigned him? 

A. Yes. He has a kingdom, a throne, a radiant crown. He sways a sceptre, the symbol of 
royal authority, and hath a numerous and glorious retinue. Ps. xlv. 5, 6; cii. 2; ii 9; xxi.; 
viii. 5 ; cxxxii. 18 ; Rev. iii. 21 ; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Lu ii. 13, 14 ; Ps. lxviii. 17 ; Dan. viii. 
10; Jude, 14. 

Q. What is the extent of Christ's mediatorial dominion 
A. It is universal. 

Q. Is it not limited to the church ? 

A. No. The church is the special kingdom of Christ - the great central province of his 
empire, around which other provinces are made to revolve. Therefore the dominion of 
Christ necessarily extends beyond its hallowed precincts Eph. i. 22, "And hath put all 
things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church." 

Q. Why is it necessary that Christ's mediatorial dominion should extend beyond the 



limits of the church, or be universal? 

A. It is necessary, 1 . That he might give a general commission to his ministers to go forth 
among the hostile nations and preach his gospel. Matt xxviii. 18, 19, " power is given 
unto me in heaven and in earth; go therefore, and teach all nations." 2. That he might 
gather from among them his elect. Jno. xvii. 2, "Glorify thy Son as thou hast given him 
power over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him" 3. 
As a reward of his mediatorial sufferings. Rev. iii. 21, "To that, overcometh will I grant 
to sit with me on my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father on 
his throne." See also Phil, ii. 8, 9. 4. To subdue all his own and his people's enemies. "He 
must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet," I Cor. xv. 26. 

Q. Is not the gospel call, as it is general to all that hear it, founded rather upon Christ's 
kingly than his priestly office? 

A. Yes; for Christ says, Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth: go ye, then and teach." The commission to teach, or preach, proceeded evidently 
from his universal dominion. 

Q. Does not this view of the matter obviate the objection made to the doctrine of a 
definite atonement, derived from the fact of the call being general? 

A. Yes. Because the ambassadors are not authorized to declare, as the ground of Christ's 
invitation to those addressed, to believe, that Christ died for them, but that he died for 
sinners, and, as Lord of all, Christ, by them, commands all men, who hear the voice of 
the gospel, to believe and repent. 

Q. In how many ways can you prove the universality of Christ's mediatorial dominion? 
A. Two. 1. From those passages which assert its universality in general terms. 2. From 
those which describe the various departments or provinces of his dominion. 

Q. Which are the passages of the first class? 

A. They are, 1. Mat. xi. 27, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." 2. Mat. 
xxviii. 18, " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." 3. Acts x. 30, "He is 
Lord of all." 4. Eph. i. 22, "And hath put all things under his feet." 5. Col. ii. 10, "He is 
the head of all principality and power." 6. 1 Cor. xv. 27, "He hath put all things under his 
feet." 7. Heb. ii. 8, "Thou hast put all things in Subjection under his feet." 

Q. Is it not Christ's essential dominion of which these passages treat? 
A. No. It is his mediatorial dominion. 

Q. How does this appear? 

A. The terms "delivered," "given," "put," designate his mediatory office; because, as the 
Son essentially considered, he cannot have authority conferred upon him, for as such he 
is equal with the Father, and all power belongs to him originally and inherently ; but as 
mediator, the Father's servant, he is properly the subject of a gift. 

Q. How do these passages prove the universality of his Mediatorial dominion ? 

A. 1. The word all occurring so frequently designates this universality. 2. There is but 



one exception made-the Father, "who put all things under him," which confirms the 
doctrine, as all beside the Father, (even the Spirit, who is called the Spirit of the Son), are 
made subject to Christ for mediatorial purposes. 

Q. Is not this subjection of the Spirit in the fullest sense voluntary ? 
A. Yes. As that of the Son to the Father, it is altogether economical; a part of that 
covenant arrangement from all everlasting between the Persons in the Godhead. He is 
still the "free Spirit." 

Q. O/how many provinces does Christ's mediatorial dominion consist ? 
A. It consists of seven. 1. The inanimate creation. Ps. viii. 6, "Thou madest him to have 
dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Mat. viii. 
27, " But the men marvelled, saying, what manner of man is this, that even the winds and 
sea obey him?" 2. The irrational tribes. Ps. viii. 7, "All sheep and oxen, yea, and the 
beasts of the field." Heb. ii. 6-8. 3. All good angels. 1 Pet. /'/'/'. 22, "Who is gone into 
heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and authorities, and powers being made 
subject unto him" See also Is. vi. 1, 2 ; Heb. i. 4 ; Rev. v. 11, 12 ; Heb. i. 14. 4. The 
wicked angels. Luke x. 17, 18, "And the seventy returned with joy, Saying, Lord, even 
the devils are subject to us through thy name and he said unto them, I beheld Satan as 
lightning fall from heaven." See Mat. viii. 28 ; Rev xii. 9, 10 ; Col. ii. 15. 5. All men. Jno. 
xvii. 2, "Power over all flesh" (flesh, the human race at large). Ps. ii. 8, " Ask of me, and 
I shall give thee the heathen (THE NATIONS) for thine inheritance, and the uttermost 
parts of the earth for thy possession." See ver. 10, 12; xviii. 43. 6. All associations, 
particularly civil and ecclesiastical. Ps. lxxii. 10, 11, "The kings of Tarshish and the isles 
shall bring presents ; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts ; yea, all kings shall 
fall down before him, and all nations shall serve him." Dan. vii. 14, " And there was 
given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom that all people, nations, and languages should 
Serve him." Col. i. 18, "He is the head of the body, the church." 7. The kingdom of 
providence. Rev. v. The sealed book of the divine purposes, respecting the church and the 
world, is put into the hands of the Lamb, and he rules in their accomplishment. 

Q. For what end is Christ invested with this universal dominion ? 

A. That he should render the whole administration of providence subservient to the 

erection, progress, and final perfection of his special kingdom, the church. 

Q. What is the true nature of Christ's mediatorial kingdom ? 
A. It is a spiritual kingdom. 

Q. What is the proper definition of its spirituality ? 

A. It is a kingdom not designed merely to promote man's corporeal and temporal 

interests, but chiefly the best interests of his immortal nature ? 

Q. In what respects is it spiritual? 

A. It is spiritual, 1. In its origin. It is not from men by any mode by which men convey 
authority-but his dominion originates solely from the spiritual grant of the Father from all 
everlasting in the covenant of grace. 2. In its ends which are, in substance, To gather his 



church-to protect it on earth-to sanctify the hearts and lives of her members, and to render 
subservient all secular things (even civil rule), to the spiritual and eternal interests of 
men. Eph. i. 22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all 
things to the church. 3. In its administration. As to the ecclesiastical department. Its 
officers are pastors and teachers, elders and deacons (spiritual officers to administer all 
the temporalities of the church), persons endowed with ministerial authority, whose 
weapons are not carnal but spiritual (instruction, advice, censure and remonstrance) -and 
as it respects the civil department, those who bear rule according to his ordinance are the 
ministers of God, and are just, ruling in the fear of the Lord-whilst the rule in both cases 
is the same-The Law of the Lord. 

Q. Is civil government a spiritual dominion ? 

A. Civil government is not strictly spiritual as it is in a good measure occupied about 
man's temporal interests, but as it is subjected to Christ, among the all things put under 
his feet, it is designed to subserve, in his hands, the religious as well as temporal interests 
of the human race. 

Q. Is the mediatorial dominion of Christ in such a sense spiritual that it can have no sort 
of connection with the world, or with things, that are secular? 

A. By no means; because, 1. Even it portion of the most spiritual of its subjects, 
regenerate men, for a time, have their residence on the earth, and tire occupied with 
secular things ; and their bodies are earthly and nourished by carnal things. 2. Besides, 
there are things specified in the grant of dominion, which are strictly and literally worldly 
and secular, Ps. viii. 6-8. "Thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, 
and the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever 
passes through the paths of the sea." 

Q. Is not his kingdom deprived of a portion of its spirituality, and Secularized by this 

connection? 

A. Not in the least. Because whatever is connected with Christ's kingdom, however 

carnal in its nature, is, in his infinite wisdom, and by his almighty power, somehow or 

other, rendered subservient to spiritual objects. Eph. i. 22. " And gave him to be head 

over all things to the church." 

Q. Does not Christ himself in John xviii. 36, ("My kingdom is not of this world,") 
disclaim all connection between his kingdom and secular things? 

A. By no means : Because, 1. His kingdom is in this world. Matt, xxviii. 18. "All power 
on earth, is given unto me." His Church, his peculiarly spiritual kingdom, is in this world. 
2. The world itself, is a part of his kingdom. Eph. i. 20, 21. " Hath set him at his own 
right hand, far above every name that is named-in this world" 3. In its origin, (as stated 
above,) it is not of this world. This Christ himself affirms, in the disputed text. "But now 
is my kingdom, not from hence. " (Men do not confer authority upon him.) 4. It signifies 
that Christ is not to reign upon earth, seated upon a visible throne as earthly kings, 
defending his kingdom by armies- "else would my servants fight." 6. His laws are not of 
this world. They are from heaven. "Its laws, its powers, are all divine." 6. It is not of this 
world, as to its benign moral influence upon society. Worldly kingdoms debase and 



enslave; this is designed to free, to elevate and sanctify the subject, and subordinates all 
things, to the eternal happiness of men. John viii. 32. 30. "Ye shall know the truth and the 
truth shall make you free. If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free 
indeed". 2 Cor. iii. 17. "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 7. It is not of this 
world, as it is designed to overthrow all the kingdoms of this world, and put them under 
the dominion of his saints, that they may subserve the spiritual interests of men. -Dan. ii. 
44. "And in the days of those (kingdoms) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom 
which shall never be destroyed; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these 
kingdoms." vii. 27. " And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom, 
under the whole heaven, shall be given 'to the people of the saints of the Most High' 8. 
The doctrine of the absolute spirituality of Christ's kingdom, would deny Christians the 
right of holding any worldly property-engaging in any secular enterprise-or entering into 
any political connection whatever; because Christ says of them, using precisely the same 
phraseology, "ye are not of this world!" now such an interpretation is manifestly 
contradictory to scripture and common sense, in this case-it follows that it is equally so in 
the other. 

Q. Do not other religious denominations, besides the Reformed Presbyterian, recognize in 
their systems the doctrine of Christ's Mediatorial dominion? 

A. Yes. A few others hold it in theory-but their theoretic profession is neutralized by a 
practical denial. -They do not make it a matter of testimony. 

SECTION II. 

Christ's exclusive Headship over the Church. 

Q. What is the radical idea of the term Church ? 

A. It is derived from the Hebrew word "np' and the Greek word 'eKKXr|<Tia' the roots of 

which signify to call ; and denotes any assembly convened by invitation or appointment 

Q. How is it used in the scriptures ? 

A. It is variously employed in the scriptures, and imports 1. The whole body of the elect, 
Eph. v. 23, "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." 2. A small worshipping 
society of private Christians; Col. iv. 15, "Salute Nymphas, and the church which is in 
his house." 3. Regularly organized congregations; Rev. ii. 1, "Unto the angel of time 
church of Ephesus write." 4. The whole visible catholic society, consisting of all who, in 
every age, in every place make a public and credible profession of the true religion 
together with their children ; Acts vii. 38, "This is he that was in the church in the 
wilderness;" Acts ii. 47, "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved;" 
Act viii. 3, "Saul made havoc of the church. " 

Q. In what sense are the epithets visible and invisible applied to the church? 
A. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible consists of the whole number of 
the elect, that have been, are, or shall be, gathered into one under Christ the head thereof. 
2. The visible church, which is also catholic ~ universal, under the gospel, (not confined 
to one nation, as before, under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world, that 
profess the true religion, together with their children. Eph. i. 22, 23 ; ch. v. 27 ; Acts ii. 



38, 39, 41, 47; Matt. xix. 14. 

Q. Are both of these views comprehended in the one church of which Christ is the Head, 

and over which he exercises mediatorial rule ? 

A. Yes ; but it is the visible organic church of which we now principally treat. 

Q. What are the marks by which the visible church catholic, as an organic body, may be 

known ? 

A. They are not those to which the Roman apostasy pretends, "antiquity", "universality," 

" continued succession", "power of working miracles," and the like, because these are 

not exclusive properties. 2. But the characteristics of the visible church catholic, are what 

belong to it, and to it alone. 

They are-soundness in doctrine-a lawful and regular ministry-and the due administration 

of gospel ordinances. Acts ii. 43; xiv. 23; Mat. xxviii. 19, 20; Acts xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. xi. 2. 

Q. Is the Lord Jesus Christ the exclusive Head of this visible catholic, ecclesiastical 

society? 

A. Yes ; he alone is Head of his body the church, and governs her with an absolute 

supremacy. 

Q. In what is his title to exclusive dominion over the church founded? 
A. His title is founded, 1 . In the appointment of the Father, Ps. ii. 6, "Yet have I set my 
King upon my holy hill of Zion." 2. In the gift of the church to him, John xvii. 6, "I have 
manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world ; thine they 
were, and thou gavest them me:" 3. In his incorporating it by covenant. It is a covenant 
society; not founded in the covenant of grace, merely, but Christ hath made with it an 
express ecclesiastical covenant, as illustrated by the transaction with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 
1-14, "1 will be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee"-which evidently has a 
respect to an ecclesiastical relation-hence Abraham is entitled the "Father of many 
nations,"-Gentiles as well as Jews. 4. It is fuunded on the purchase of the church with his 
own blood ; Acts xx. 1 8, "Feed the church of God which he bath purchased with his own 
blood." 5. This right is founded in the circumstance that he is the maker and builder of 
the church. Heb. iii. 3-6, "For this man was accounted worthy of more glory than Moses, 
inasmuch as he who bath builded the house is worthy of more honour than the house-and 
Moses, verily, was faithful in all his house as a servant-but Christ as a son over his own 
house." Also, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 5; Eph. ii. 22. 

Q. By what passages of Scripture can it be established that the Lord Jesus Christ is the 
exclusive Head of the church ? 

A. I. By Psa. ii. 6, "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. ' 2. Ps. cxlix. 2, 
"Let the children of Zion be joyful in their king." 3. Is. ix. 6, "unto us a child is born, unto 
us a Son is given-and the government shall beupon his shoulders-and he shall sit upon the 
throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it" 4. Is. xxiv. 23, 
"The Lord of hosts shall reign on Mount Zion." 5. Zech. ix. 9, "Rejoice, daughter of 
Zion-behold thy King cometh unto thee." 6. Zech. vi. 13, "Even he shall build the temple 
of the Lord ; and he shall bear the glory, said shall sit and rule upon his throne." 7. Luke 



i. 33, "He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever." 8. Acts v. 31, "Him bath God 
exalted a prince-to give repentance to Israel." 9. Rev. xv. 3, "Just and true are thy ways, 
thou KING OF SAINTS." 10. Eph. iv. 18, "Who is the Head, even Christ" 11. Eph. v. 23, 
24, "Christ is Head of the Church" -"The church is subject unto Christ" 12. Col. i. 18, 
"And he is the head of the body, the church." 

Q. Does not the Pope of Rome claim to be head of the visible church? 
A. Yes; this is his blasphemous claim. 1 . In the Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, he claims 
to be "Successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ." 2. The 
Council of Florence, A. D. 1438, decreed, '"That the human Pontiff is head of the whole 
church, and to him, in St. Peter, was delegated, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to 
feed, rule and govern the universal church: ' 

Q. Is there any foundation in Scripture for this supremacy of Peter and his alleged 
successors? 

A. Not the least; on the contrary, every aspiration after supremacy was decidedly rebuked 
and forbidden by our Lord, and the strictest fraternal parity enforced. 1. Matt. xx. 25-27, 
"And Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles 
exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it 
shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your 
minister; and whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant." 2. Mat. xxiii. 
8, "But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ; and all ye are 
brethren. And call no man your father, (Pope) upon the earth; for one is your Father, 
which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, even Christ. But 
ho that is greatest among you shall be your servant." 3. Mark ix. 3, "And he sat down and 
called the twelve, and said unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last 
Of all and Servant of all." 

Q. Are there not numerous arguments confuting this blasphemous claim ? 
A. Yes; many. 1. Paul rebuked Peter, and reckoned himself his equal. Gal. ii. 11, " But 
when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he wag to bu 
blamed." Also, verse 14. 2. If the dignity of the person left any authority with the city 
where he resided, then Antioch had equal claims with Rome; and Jerusalem, where Christ 
suffered, was to be preferred to all the world, for it was really the mother church. 3. Peter 
had a limited province - the circumcision, as Paul the uncircumcision ; the latter being 
of the greatest extent. And hence, Peter was not considered the universal pastor. 4. This 
claim was denied by the primitive church writers. Cyprian and other bishops, wrote to the 
bishop of Rome, as to their " fellow-bishop," "colleague," and "brother;" they were 
opposed to appeals to Rome; and asserted that all bishops were equal in power, as the 
apostles had been. 5. When the Emperor Mauritius gave the title, " Universal Bishop," to 
the Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, complained of the, 
ambition of that title, which he calls "equal to the pride of Lucifer ! 6. It was not till the 
year 606, that Boniface the Third received, from the brutal usurper Phocas, the title of 
"Universal Bishop." 7. This power was not, for centuries after, acknowledged in 
Germany, Scotland, England, &c, and even several sees, as Ravenna, Milan and 
Aquileia, plead exemption from the papal authority. From all this it is manifest, that the 



Pope's power is a usurpation ; and the Pope is the "Man of Sin,"-" the Antichrist,"-" the 
son of perdition-who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is 
worshipped ; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, allowing himself that he is 
God." 2 Thess. 11. 4. 

Q. Do not civil rulers claim a supremacy over the church ? 

A. Yes ; They have often usurped this prerogative of Jesus Christ, and exercised a 

despotic authority over his church. 

Q. Is there any foundation in the scriptures for this claim? 

A. Not the least. The scriptures exhibit civil rule as having for its object things external, 
relating immediately to the outer man, in subserviency to the religious interests of 
society, and as having no power over things ecclesiastical. 

Q. Do not the Scriptures substantially prohibit civil rulers from exercising ecclesiastical 
power? 

A. They do. 2 Chron. xxvi. 10-20, "It appertaineth not to thee, Uzziah, to burn incense 
unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to bunt incense ; 
go out of the sanctuary." Yea, the Lord punished his presumption and "smote him with 
leprosy, and they thrust him out of the temple. This instance clearly proves that civil 
rulers have no ecclesiastical power. Their whole authority is civil, and all they do in 
relation to the Church is in their capacity of civil rulers. They have no authority (as will 
be seen in another section,) in or over the church. 

Q. What are some of the claims of our Lord Jesus Christ in relation o the church, as its 
exclusive and sovereign head? 

A. He claims the exclusive right to appoint to the church, 1. Her doctrine; Gal 1:11, "But 
I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I 
neither received it of men, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ;" 
also, verses 8, 9, and 2 John 10. 2. All her officers; Eph. iv. 2, "And he gave some 
apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and some teachers 
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Phil. i. 1, "To all the 
saints that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." 3. All her institutions of 
worship ; Matt. xv. 9, "But, in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men." 4. All her laws ; Is. xxxiii. 22, "The Lord is our lawgiver." Isa. 
ii. 3, "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of 
the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us his ways, and we will 
walk in his paths; for out of Zion Shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from 
Jerusalem." 

Q. What are the officers which Christ, as her head, has appointed in the Church ? 
A. They are, 1. Extraordinary; Eph. iv. 11, "apostles," "prophets ," "evangelists." 2. 
Ordinary; pastors and teachers, ruling elders and deacons. Eph. iv. 6, "Some pastors and 
teachers." 1 Tim. v. 17, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine." 1 Tim. ii. 8, "Likewise, must 
the deacons be grave." 



Q. What are the respective functions of these officers ? 

A. The functions of the pastors are, to instruct and rule the church; Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, 
"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations-teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you." Acts xx. 28, "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the 
flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers-to feed the church of 
God." Heb. xiii. 17, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for 
they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account." 2. The function of the 
ruling elders, is simply to rule ; 1 Tim. v. 17, "Let the elders that rule well be counted 
worthy of double honour." 3. The functions of the deacons are, to receive and disburse 
the ecclesiastical funds, and exercise a care over all other temporalities of the church- 
giving a special attention to the poor; Acts vi. 1-0, "And in those days," &c. 

Q. Are the ministers of the church clothed with a despotic and discretional Power? 
A. No; their power is simply stewardly and ministerial. 

Q. Is it not rebellion against Christ as the Head of his church, to reject any one of the 
officers of his appointment, or to deny any officer the exercise of any one of the functions 
of his office ? 

A. Undoubtedly ; because Christ is jealous of his own authority in Zion, and will not give 
"His glory to another." 

Q. Where do you find the divine warrant for the office of Deacon in the New Testament 
church ? 

A. In the following Scriptures : 1. Acts vi. Where we are informed of the origin and the 
design of the office. 2. 1 Tim 3: 8-12. Where the inspired apostle describes their 
necessary qualifications - Likewise must the deacons be grave," &:c. 3. Phil. i. 1. Where 
the apostle exhibits their existence in the church equally with the bishops-(" with the 
bishops and deacons.") 

Q. What are the duties of this office ? 

A. To take charge of and disburse the temporalities of the church giving special attention 

to the poor. 

Q. Where do you find the evidence in scripture that all the temporalities of the church are 

entrusted to the deacons ? 

A. In Acts vi. 

Q. How does this passage prove that the temporalities of the church are confided to the 
deacons ? 

A. 1. The church had one common fund at that time, Acts ii. 44 ; iv. 34, 35. 2. This Was 
laid at the apostles' feet, Acts iv. 34-37. 3. This business was more than the apostles 
could manage consistently with their higher employments, Acts vi. 2. 4. The seven were 
set over the same business, Acts vi. 3, 4. 

Q. Did the apostles except any part of this common fund ? 
A. No. It was ALL delivered over to the deacons. 



Q. Did this officer exist universally in the church in apostolic times? 
A. Yes. 

Q. What evidence have you from history ? 

A. Mosheim says, "That all the other Christian Churches followed the example of that of 

Jerusalem in whatever related to the choice and office of deacon." 

Q. Does any other historian confirm this? 

A. Yes. Several ; Brown of Haddington, Dr. Miller of Princeton, and others. 

Q. What is the testimony of Brown ? 

A. He states in substance-That deacons were universal in the apostolic church. 

Q. What say's Dr. Miller ? 

A. Dr. Miller states,-"For the first two hundred years every flock of professing Christians 

had its pastor or bishop, "with its bench of elders, and its body of deacons. "-Tract on 

Presbyterianism. 

Q. What says Buck, in his Theological dictionary, on the existence and duties of this 
office in the primitive church ? 

A. Buck says, "The office of deacon originally was to serve tables-the Lord's table, the 
minister's, and the poor's table. They took care of the secular affairs of the church, 
received and disbursed moneys-kept the church's accounts-and provided every thing 
necessary for its temporal good. 

Q. Did the Reformation Church of Scotland recognise this office as it existed in the 
primitive church, in the fill extent of its duties as illustrated above? 

A. Yes. In her Second Book of Discipline she says: "The office and power of the deacon 
is to receive and distribute THE WHOLE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL GOODS unto 
them to whom they are appointed, that the patrimony of the kirk and poor be not 
converted unto private men's use, nor wrongfully distributed." 

Q. Is there any evidence that this Second Book of Discipline was "binding law in said 
Church alter the adoption of the Westminster Standards?" 

A. Yes ; abundant. As a specimen, take the act, of the year 1649, abolishing patronage; in 
which patronage is said to be "contrary to the Second Book of Discipline," in which, 
upon sound and good ground, it is reckoned among abuses that are desired to be 
reformed. The Form of church government was adopted Feb. 10, 1645-four years before 
the passage of the act which quotes it as authority. Cruikshank, vol 1, p. 78. 

Q. Does the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States recognise the office in 

like manner ? 

A. Yes. She declares that the " deacon's power is about the temporalities of the church." 



Q. Do our brethren in Scotland thus recognise the office? 

A. Yes. In their Testimony they say: "Deacons are ordained upon the choice of the 
congregation, and are associated with the teaching and ruling elders, in distributing to the 
necessities of the poor, and managing other temporalities, of the church." 

Q. Is this office perpetual in the church ? 

A. Yes: 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12, and Phil. i. 1. Its perpetuity is the same with that or the bishop or 

pastor. 

Q. What say the Standards of the Reformed Presbyterian Church respecting the 

perpetuity of this office ? 

A. The Westminster Form of Church Government says of the "deacon" "whose office is 

perpetual". 



Q. Has Christ instituted in his church, ordinances of divine worship and Christian 
fellowship? 

A. Yes; Christ has sanctioned' either by express institution, or by his administrative 
example, 1. Public prayer. 2. praise. 3. Reading of the scriptures. 4. preaching the word; 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the presence of his disciples he lifted his eyes to 
heaven, in solemn supplication to the Father. He sung with them a hymn before going out 
to the Mount of Olives. When he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, he "stood 
up for to read." "Go ye into all nations and preach the gospel to every creature," was 
among his last directions to the apostles and their successors. He commanded them also 
to " Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In 
reference to the ordinance of the supper, he said, " Do this in remembrance of me." And, 
as for that portion of time which is consecrated to the peculiar observance of all these' 
institutions, it is written, "The Son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath." There is not an 
institution of divine worship by Which the devotional feelings of the church are 
expressed, or the edification of the body promoted, which bears not the stamp of the 
Saviour's authority; find in observing them all, the true saint has the satisfaction to know, 
that he is " serving the Lord Christ". 

Q. Is it not daring presumption and an act of rebellion, to worship by any observance of 
our own invention ? 

A. Yes ; for Christ, 1 . Rebukes it. "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men." 2. He gives us two alarming examples of his jealousy in this 
respect. -The cases of Nadab and Abihu, who, for offering "strange fire," were consumed 
by "a vehement flame," from the presence of the Lord-and the worshippers of the golden 
calf who were miserably slain. 

Q. Does not the efficacy of ordinances depend upon the dominion of Christ in his church? 
A. Yes; Christ, upon his ascension to the right hand of the throne of God, " received gifts 
for men, even for the rebellious-that the Lord might dwell among them" among which 
gifts are the Holy Spirit, whom he sends forth as the Spirit of truth, to lead men into the 
knowledge of the truth ; and it is by the word of Christ rendered "quick and powerful," by 



the energy of the Spirit that men are convinced of sin, enlightened in the knowledge of 
Christ, and their wills renewed-and are thus enabled to embrace the Saviour, as he is 
offered in the gospel. 

Q. Has Christ instituted a form of government in his church? 

A. Yes; he has not left his church in a state of anarchy or confusion or to be modelled 
according to the fancies of men, as may best serve their political views and designs. 
Every piece of the Old Testament tabernacle was to be placed according to the pattern 
shown in the holy mount; much more the New Testament church, which is called " the 
true tabernacle of David." Compare Acts xv. 16, with Amos ix. 11. 

Q. What texts demonstrate an established government in the New Testament church ? 
A. Many; its examples, 1 Thess. v. 12, "We beseech you, brethren, to know them which 
labour among and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you." ITim. v. 17, Let the 
elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour." And, Hebrews xiii. 17, "Obey 
them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves." 

Q. flow many forms are there of church government, for which their advocates claim a 
scriptural warrant? 

A. Four: the papal, or spiritual monarchy ; the episcopal, or spiritual prelacy; 
independency, or spiritual democracy; and presbyterianism, or spiritual republicanism. 

Q. What is the distinctive characteristic of each ? 

A. The first maintains the necessity of one supreme, universal, infallible head of the 
whole Christian body, and throughout the world, who is the authorized vicar of Christ. 
The second contends for all order of clerical prelates, above the rank of ordinary 
ministers of the gospel, who are alone, in their view, empowered to ordain, and without 
whose presiding agency there call be no regular church. The third holds that all 
ecclesiastical power resides in the mass of the church members and that all acts of 
ecclesiastical authority are to he performed immediately by them. The fourth maintains 
that Christ has made all ministers who are authorized to dispense the word and 
sacraments, equal in official rank and power; that in every church the immediate exercise 
of ecclesiastical power is deposited, not with the whole mass of the people, but with a 
body of their representatives styled elders; and that the whole visible church catholic, as 
far as their denomination is concerned, is not only one in name, but so united by a series 
of assemblies of these representatives, acting in the name and by the authority of the 
whole, as to bind the whole body together as one church, walking by the same principles 
of faith and order, and voluntarily, yet authoritatively, governed by the same system of 
rules and regulations. 

Q. What is the first proof of the absolute parity of the ministers of the word ? 
A. Mark x. 42-44, " But Jesus called them to him, and said to them, Ye know that they 
which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them, and their great 
ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever shall 
be great among you, shall be your minister, and whosoever will be the chiefest shall be 
the servant of all. " (See also Mat. xx. 25, 27 ; xxiii. 8-12 ; Luke xxii. 25, 20.) 



Q. What is the second argument? 

A. 1 Pet. v. 3, "Neither as being lords over God's heritage (literally clergy,) but being 

ensamples to the flock." 

Q. What is the third proof? 

A. The highest ordinary officers mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11, are "pastors 

and teachers," as given and set by Christ in the church, for the work of the ministry. " 

Q. What is the fourth proof ? 

1 1 . Presbyter and bishop are convertible terms ; that is, they apply to the same individual, 
exercising one and the same office. Presbyter or elder is expressive of the authority, and 
episkopos, or bishop, of the duty of the pastor. Acts xx. 17-28, " From Miletus he sent to 
Ephesus, and called the elders (presbyters-Greek,) of the church, And charged them, 
saying, "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost 
hath made you overseers," (or "bishops") Also, 1 Pet. v. 2, "The elders which are among 
you I exhort, which am also an elder, feed the church of God which is among you, taking 
the oversight thereof,"-episkopountes-episcopising, or watching, or performing the duty 
of a bishop. In both these passages, elder is the official title, and bishop the term ex- 
pressive of the duties of the elder. 

Q. What is the fifth argument? 

A. The officers of the church are ordained by a plurality of elders, in which act they all 
stand on an equal platform. Acts xiv. 23, " And when they had ordained them elders in 
every church." 1 Tim. iv. 14, " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee 
by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. " Paul and Barnabas acted 
as presbyters in ordination, and as members of a presbytery, and Timothy was ordained 
by the same-a plurality of elders acting in these solemn transactions as equals, and not by 
a lord over God's clergy. 

Q. What is the sixth argument? 

A. The apostles, in ordaining elders, acted simply as presbyters. Timothy was ordained 

by a presbytery, of which presbytery Paul was a member, 2 Tim. i. 6. 

Q. What is the seventh proof? 

A. All the elders have equal authority as rulers. 1 Tim. v. 17, " Let the elders that rule 
well be counted worthy of double honour." According to this, all elders have equal 
authority as rulers-the only distinction which can justly obtain among them, is not in the 
sense of rule, as superior or inferior- of greater diligence and fidelity in the performance 
of presbyterial duty. 

Q. What proof is there of the existence of a class of officers, designated by the title, 
Ruling Elders, distinct from the pastor or teaching elder? 

A. There is abundant proof; First, The New Testament church was modelled after the 
pattern, substantially of the Jewish synagogue. The order of the synagogue was 
substantially as follows. There was a preacher or angel of each synagogue ; this angel 



was not the bishop of a diocess or province, but of a particular congregation, assembled 
in one synagogue or place of worship; there was associated with him a number of rulers 
entitled, Luke xiii. 14, the rulers of the synagogue; and a third class-collectors and 
distributors of the funds. 

Q. Did our Saviour sanction this order in his ministrations on earth? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Did the apostles And evangelists preach in the Jewish synagogues, and organise 
congregations upon this simple and efficient model? 

A. Yes. Acts xiv. 23, "And when they had ordained them elders in every church," or 
congregation. As there was it plurality of elders ordained in each congregation, it is just 
inference that, associated with the angel' bishop, or pastor of the New Testament 
congregation, after the model of the synagogue, is a bench of elders, whose function it is 
to conduct its government. Second, 1 Tim. v. 17, " Let the elders that rule well be 
counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" 
Evidently, " Elders that rule well," are justly denominated "ruling elders". 

Q. Is there a manifest distinction among these elders ? 

A. Yes; There are some whose sole business it is to rule; another class who, besides 

ruling, "labour in word and doctrine." Because, if this distinction be not observed, the 

passage would run-substituting equivalent expressions, thus strange 

ly :"Let the elders that do their duty well be counted worthy of double honour, especially 

the elders that do their duty!" This passage, therefore, requires distinction into ruling 

elders and teaching elders; that is, a class who rule only-another class which, besides 

ruling, teach, in which only they have a pre-eminence. 

Q. Are not those who labour in word and doctrine contrasted with those who only rule ? 
d. This is the Come of the word [laXiaTa. It is used in several passages evidently with 
this view. Gal. ii. 10, "Let us do good unto all men, especially (malista) unto them who 
are of the household of faith". 1 Tim. iv. 10, "Who is the Saviour of all men, especially 
(malista) of those who believe. "All elders that rule well are worthy of regard - but there 
is a reason why Some elders should be regarded which does not belong to all; their duty, 
besides ruling, labouring in the word and doctrine; therefore the they are to be par- 
ticularly honoured for this peculiarity, by which they are distinguished from the others 
who rule only. It would indeed be strange if it was the duty of each and all elders, besides 
ruling, to labour in word "and doctrine, that Paul should account men worthy of double 
honour who neglected the chief part of their duty! For the text plainly shows that some 
rule well, but do not labour in word and doctrine ; others, in addition to ruling well, are 
commended for labouring in the word and doctrine. It is evident, therefore , that there are 
two distinct classes of elders properly designated by the appellations of RULING 
ELDERS AND TEACHING ELDERS. The former rule only. The latter, besides ruling, 
teach the words of eternal life. 

Q. What other proof have you for the office of Ruling Elder. 

A. Rom. xii. 7, 8, "Let us wait on our ministering-he that teacheth, on teaching-he that 



ruleth, let him do it with diligence." Paul compares the church, in this chapter, to the 
human body-and as in that body all the members have not the same office, so all the 
members of the church have not the same office. There are gifts differing according to the 
grace given to each. In the passage quoted, evidently the ruler is distinguished from the 
teacher-ruling from teaching. The elders that rule are distinct from those who have, 
besides, the office in the body of teaching, and have grace distinguishing them for this 
work. 

Q. What further proof? 

11. 1 Cor. xii. 28, "Teachers-governments." In addition to the standing ministry in the 

church, whose chief office is to teach, there is a class of officers endowed with authority 

to govern (as the word means) as assistants to the teachers in the government of the 

church. 



Q. What additional proof? 

A. James v. 14, "Is any man sick among you let him call for the elders of the church," or 

congregation. These elders are evidently over the same congregation. If they are remote 

from each other, the afflicted individual could not have access to them in his exigency ; 

and taken in connexion "with Acts xiv. 23, -the ordination of a plurality of elders in each 

congregation-it is evidence in favour of the distinct order of officers entitled RULING 

ELDERS. 

Q. Is there a series of judicatories, rising one above another, by which the church is 
bound together as one homogeneous community ? 

A. Yes; First, the congregational session. Second, Presbytery. Third, The synod, general 
assembly, &c. 

Q. What proof in scripture is there for the congregational presbytery or session? 
A. There is sufficient proof. First, The New Testament churches, or congregations, were 
modelled after the Jewish, synagogue, which was governed by an estate of elders. Acts 
xviii. 8-17 ; Mark iv. 35, 30, 38. Second, Christ refers with approbation to the order of 
government among the Jews, (which we will show again,) Matt, xviii. 15-21: "Tell it to 
the church." Now the Jews had a lesser court of sanhedrin, called "The assembly of 
three," in every place of the number of one hundred and twenty inhabitants. There must 
be something similar in the New Testament church. The congregational court to which 
we tell the offences of the offending brother. Third, Heb. xiii. 17, " Obey them that have 
the rule over you, and submit yourselves," relates first in order to the congregational 
rulers, as is plain from the reason assigned for submission, for they "watch for your 
souls." The immediate rulers who had to care of the particular flock; confirmed by ver. 7. 
Fourth, 1 Thess. v. 12, "Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the 
Lord, and admonish you. " A plain proof of a number of congregational rulers who 
immediately governed the people, clothed with the power of authoritative admonition, 
and to whom they were to be in meek subjection. 

Q. How can you prove the divine right of presbytery? 



A. The arguments are numerous. We select one—the church of Antioch. First , there were 
several single congregations in this one church. 1. The multitude of believers: -Acts xi. 
21, "A great number believed." By the preaching of Barnabas " Much people were added 
to the Lord ;" (verse 24.) Barnabas and Saul, for a year together, ought much people, and 
disciples there so mightily multiplied, that there they were first designated "Christians;" 
verses 25, 26. 2. From the multitude of preachers at Antioch : Acts xi. 20, "Divers 
preached" there-three or four at least. There Barnabas was sent,' verses 22-24. he went 
for Saul to help him, so great was the harvest; verses 25, 26. There came a number from 
Jerusalem; verses 27, 28. .five more are to be added, who are named Acts xiii. l-:3. " 
"Yea, Paul and Barnabas continued in Antioch teaching and preaching the word of the 
Lord, with many others also ; " xv. .35. Now sum up all. What a multitude of believers, 
and what a college of preachers, were here at Antioch ! How is it possible that all these 
preachers should be occupied in one congregation (and they were not idlers,) dispensing 
the ordinances of Christ to them only? Or how could so many members meet in one 
single congregation at once, ordinarily, to partake of all ordinances. Now these numerous 
believers and preachers are called, Acts xiii. 1 " The church, that was at Antioch; " 
evidently in regard of one joint administration of church government among them, by one 
common presbytery? 

Q. What other proof ? 

A. In Antioch we have clearly two examples of presbyterial meetings. 1. Acts xiii. 1-9, 
"Now there was in the church in Antioch church that was at Antioch, certain prophets, 
(who prophesied by preaching or expounding the word,) and teachers; as Barnabas, and 
Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius, of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been 
brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, 
the Holy Ghost said, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have 
called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they 
sent them away." This was evidently a presbyterial act. Paul and Barnabas were 
separated to missionary labour, by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," with all 
due formality. 2. Acts xv. "And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the 
brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be 
saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with 
them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up 
to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. " Can anything be plainer 
than that, the question of circumcision was brought before the assembly of the elders of 
Antioch, and reasoned at length, but they came to no decision upon the merits- of the 
question, but, as it concerned the whole church, wisely " determined" to refer it to the 
highest ecclesiastical tribunal for its decision-to which synodal assembly they appointed 
their delegates? They decided, decreed or ordained, as the Greek for "determined" 
means-to send Paul, &c. Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, &c, offer equally forcible and 
conclusive arguments to the same point. 

Q. Is there any proof for the divine right of synodal assemblies ? 

A. Yes; The proof is conclusive. First, The unity of the church is a valid argument. The 
fourth chapter of Ephesians discusses this unity, and any one who will candidly 
examine it, will be convinced that the ministry is given for the purpose of governing it as 



a unity, until the end of time. There is but " one Lord, one faith, one baptism ;" and there 
is but "one body." To this one body the pastors and teacher -as the ordinary ministry-are 
given-given, moreover, to preserve this unity, " till we all come in the unity of faith unto 
the perfect man." Being with this view given to the church, how can they preserve this 
unity, but by assembling in a judicatory, where they can act for the whole-take the 
oversight; feed, govern, and direct the whole church of God ? A synod is, therefore, 
demanded by the unity of the church : and this unity is preserved where Christ is really 
recognised as the Head, and his laws are honestly administered by a synodical assembly. 
If synods have failed to preserve this unity, it will be found that they have deliberated 
upon the principles of a carnal expediency, and were not governed by the word and truth 
of Christ. 

Q. What is the second proof for synodal assemblies? 

A. Christ refers with approbation to the forms of procedure in the Jewish courts, in which 
the synagogues were subordinate to the Sanhedrin. There were three judicial assemblies 
among the Jews. The first consisted of one hundred and twenty; the second of twenty- 
three, and the third of three judges. The former was called the great sanhedrin ; the 
second the sanhedrin of twenty-three, and the latter the assembly of three. The great 
sanhedrin sat in Jerusalem; the lesser in every place containing more than one hundred 
and twenty inhabitants, and the assembly of three, in every place of the number of one 
hundred and twenty inhabitants. This is the system of which our Redeemer approved as 
we have his judgement, in the eighteenth of Matthew; and he intimates very clearly from 
the 18 to the 20th verse, that the great sanhedrin embodied in these judicial tribunals 
would be extended throughout the New Testament .dispensation. This system WAS 
rigidly observed until after the destruction of the second temple. The assembly of three, 
and the sanhedrin of twenty three, were subordinate to the great sanhedrin, which had 
both appellate and original jurisdiction. From the recommendation of our Saviour, we 
may safely conclude, that a supreme assembly after the example of the great sanhedrin, 
will meet his approbation. He commends the court of two or three. " For where two or 
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." And when he 
says, "Tell it unto the church," he shows explicitly his approbation of the judicial system 
by which the body of his people, under the former dispensation, were governed ; for he 
gave the law which is recorded in Deut. xvii. 8-12, and which seems to lay down the 
principle of appeal according to this simple and essentially righteous judicial system. 

Q. What is the third proof? 

A. At Jerusalem a synod composed of the rulers of the several churches met, debuted, and 
determined a point of controversy in the church. We have a record of the fact - and the 
transactions of this synodal assembly in the fifteenth of Acts. We have here, 1. An 
authoritative decree; 2. Enacted by a representative body ; 3. Exercising ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction over churches and presbyteries. 

Q. What is the proof of the first position ? 

A As to the first Acts xvi. 4, is conclusive. "As they went, through the cities they 
delivered them the decrees for to keep which were ordained by the apostles and elders 
which were at Jerusalem." Ta 8oy|iaTa tq KeKpi|ieva. Dogma does not mean advice, 



but a decree that must be obeyed. The decrees of the Roman emperor are designated by 
the same word ; Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 1, "There went out a decree (8oy|ia) from Caesar 
Augustus." "These all do contrary to the decrees (8oy|iaTcov) of Caesar." The decrees of 
the Caesars were not simple advice-but, authoritative, and to be obeyed at the peril of the 
subject: so the acts of this synod were authoritative decrees-binding the conscience of the 
members of the church. 

Q. What is the proof of the second position ? 

A. As to the second, the synod was a representative body. The apostles were not alone in 
this grand assembly-nor did they as members act in their apostolic character-but as elders 
(1 Pet. V. 1,) in their presbyterial capacity ; verse 6 "The apostles and elders came 
together for to consider this matter." The whole church; verse 22, The brethren verse 23. 
Those who are styled the whole church in the 22d, are called " the brethren," in the 23 
verse. The latter signifies, as a technical term, men, of equal rank to others specified, 
(Acts xxii. 5, and xv. 40, xx. 32 ) The equals of the elders of Jerusalem at Damascus. The 
elders of Ephesus, officially -and the members of the synod-equals in authority- 
delegates from the churches that were not of Judea. The "whole church" is the church 
representative. The private members of the church at Jerusalem could not be styled the 
whole church-and upon the principles of independency, could not bind by their acts the 
church in Corinth etc.; And upon the principles of Presbyterianism the members of the 
church in one city could not bind by their acts the members of another city. The whole 
church universal was not present in Jerusalem in its collective members. It was the 
church representative in her delegates-the brethren front the distant cities and provinces 
of the church. Antioch sends, as we have seen, her delegates-and other presbyteries are 
there in the person of their delegates-so that the decree is the act the of the o\x\ rr\ 
eKK\er|OTa - the whole church representatively. 

Q. How do you prove the third position ? 

A. As to the third, these decrees were sent down to the whole church, to be kept-as 
decisions binding the conscience of all its members, officially or personally considered. 
Acts xvi. 4, "They went through all the cities and delivered them the decrees for to keep. " 
The decrees respected, and bound all the churches. Paul was now in Derbe or Lystra, in 
Lycaonia, having passed through Syria and Cilicia, and from Lycaonia he travelled 
through Phrygia and Galatia into Macedonia. Through whatever cities he passed where 
there was a church, he delivered them the decrees of the synod of Jerusalem. " to keep." 
The word (pvXaaao, rendered "to keep," signifies not only to keep in safety -with care as 
a deposit, but to observe, so as not to violate, as a command; Matt. xix. 20; Mark x. 20, 
"All these things have I kept, (the same Greek word) from my youth up." These decrees 
of the synod were to be observed as the commandments of Christ. Second, We have seen 
the question was referred from the presbytery of Antioch, which, as will be seen, 
acquiesced in the decision of the synod. Third, All the churches submitted to the decree ; 
Acts xv. 30, 31, "So when they (commissioners of synod) were dismissed, they came to 
Antioch, and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle, 
which, when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation." And in the 46th verse, 
Paul and Silas are said to have "gone through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches" 
How confirming them but by giving them the decree; of the synod deciding the question 



by which they had been unsettled in their judgements? This is clearly made out by the 4th 
and 5 verses of the sixteenth chapter: "And so as they went through the cities they 
delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders 
which were at Jerusalem -and so were the churches established in the faith, and increased 
in number daily." The whole church submitted cheerfully to the decision of the supreme 
judicatory: even the gainsayers seem to have been silenced by the authoritative decision 
of so august a body, acting in the name of the church's exalted Head; and peace, 
establishment, and prosperity, were the happy results of this judicial decision, and the 
submission of the church to those who' had the rule over them in the Lord, whose 
"authority was for edification and not for destruction." 

Q. What principle is the basis of the Presbyterian system 

of church government? 

A. The principle of representation-and from the church the nations have derived the 

elements of republican institutions wherever they exist. 

Q. Will not this principle bind the church in the millennium-and oven the nations 
respectively-throughout the earth-in one homogeneous community? 

A. The principle will admit of any degree of extension. An assembly may be constituted 
to embrace the globe; and a just interpretation of the scripture seems to justify this 
opinion. Jer. iii. 17, At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all 
the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord to Jerusalem; neither shall 
they walk any more after the imagination of their own heart." 

Q. Has Christ as the Head of his church authorized the exercise of discipline upon the 
household of faith? 

A. Yes. The Lord Jesus Christ bath instituted DISCIPLINE in order to remove scandals, 
and prevent their 'unhappy effects, and no church can, without the faithful and spiritual 
application of it, hope for his countenance and blessing. First, Mat. xviii. 17, "If he shall 
neglect to hear them, tell it to the church ; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him he 
unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." Second, "Them that sin rebuke before all, 
that others also may fear." Third, "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second 
admonition reject." Fourth, Christ reproves the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira for 
laxity in discipline; Rev. ii. 14, 20, "But I have a few things against thee because thou 
hast there them that, hold the doctrine of Balaam." "Nevertheless I have a few things 
against thee, because thou sufferest that woman, Jezebel, to teach and seduce my ser- 
vants," &tc. Fifth, he commends the church of Ephesus for fidelity in this respect; "This 
thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." 

Q. What Are some of the characteristics of the discipline which Christ authorizes as the 
Head of the church ? 

A. First, It should be faithful-the guilty should not escape. 1 Cor. v. 5, "In the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, when they are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that 
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Second, It should he administered 
in all orderly manner ; 1 Cor. xiv. 40, "Let all things be done decently and in order." 



Third, In all meekness; Gal. vi. 1, "Restore such a one in the spirit of meekness" 
Fourth, in a solemn manner; 1 Pet. iv. 11, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles 
of God." Fifth, It should be exercised impartially; 1 Tim. V. 21, "Doing nothing by 
partiality." 

Q. What are the offences which should subject the members of the church to discipline? 
A. They are, First, Errors in doctrine; Rom: xvi. "Mark them which cause divisions and 
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." Second, 
Immorality in practice; 2 Chron. xxiii. 19, "He set the porters at the gates of the house of 
the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in." Eph, v. 11, "Have 
no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (See also 
Rev. ii. 20.) Third, Despising the authority, order, or ordinances of the church ; 1 Cor. 
xi. 2, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the 
ordinances as I delivered them to you." 2 Th. iii. 6, "Now we command you, brethren, in 
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye Withdraw yourselves from every brother that 
walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us." Fourth, 
Neglecting the public, domestic, or secret duties of religion; Heb. x. 25, " Not forsaking 
the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is." Jer. x. 25, "Pour out thy 
fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy 
name " Matt. vi. "But thou when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast 
shut thy door, pray to they Father which is in secret." 

Q. What are the censures of the church? 

A. They are for edification and not destruction, And are, First, Rebuke ; Tit 1:3, "Rebuke 
them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith" Second, suspension from the privileges 
of the church; 2 Thess. iii. 14, 16, "If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that 
man, And have no company with him, that he may be ashamed; yet count him not as an 
enemy, but Admonish him as a brother." Third, Excommunication or excision from the 
church; 1 Cor. v. 13, " Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Gal. v. 12, 
"I would they were even cut off which trouble you." 

Q. What advantage may be derived from the impartial and prudent exercise of church 
discipline ? 

A. The impartial and prudent exercise of church discipline is useful for vindicating the 
honour of Jesus Christ, maintaining the dignity of his ordinances, preserving the 
purity of the church, averting the judgments of God, And for the benefit of the offender 
himself, that by the administration of this ordinance of Christ, through grace, he may be 
humbled and recovered ; 2 Cor. x. 8, "Our Authority which the Lord hath given us for 
edification, and not for your destruction." 

Q. Would not the full recognition of the Headship of Christ over his church, and humble 
and implicit obedience to his authority in all things, greatly promote the unity, peace, 
establishment, and prosperity of the church? 

A. Yes; Divisions, contentions, and schisms, usually arise in the church from a 
forgetfulness or rejection of the mediatorial authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in his 
Church. Men, even ministers of religion, are apt to act upon the principle "Our tongues 



are our own, who is Lord over us?" In contrast with such-" Blessed are the meek, for they 
shall inherit the earth." " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of 
heaven." 

Q. Do not all Presbyterian denominations, at least, recognise the doctrine of Christ's 
exclusive Headship over the church? 

A. Yes ; In theory-but many reject it practically, as they introduce inventions of their own 
into the worship of God-or adulterate republican presbyterianism by admitting into their 
administration many of the elements of democratic independency. The Reformed 
Presbyterians, more rigidly than all others, maintain Christ's exclusive Headship over the 
church, tolerating no invasion of his prerogatives in this respect by rulers on the one 
hand, or by the people on the other. 

SECTION III. 

On the Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the Word of GOD in the 

Church. 

Q. Are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament the only rule of faith and manners? 
A. Yes; Is. viii. 20. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this 
word, it is because there is no light in them." 

Q. Are the Scriptures of the Old Testament equally with those of the New-a rule of faith 
and manners? 
A. Yes. 

Q. What is the first proof? 

A. Christ exhorted the Jews to search the Old Testament Scriptures, declaring that they 

testified of him. John v. 39. "Search the Scriptures -they are they which testify of me." 

Q. What is the second? 

A. Christ commends the Old Testament, and exhorts his disciples to attend reverently to 
Moses and the prophets. Luke xvi. 29. "They have Moses and the prophets, let them 
hear them." Also, ver. 31. 

Q. What is the third proof ? 

A. The Apostle Peter directs the attention of Christians to them as a rule, to he observed 
attentively until the day star of glory shall arise. 2 Pet. i. 19. "We have also a more sure 
word of prophecy; whereunto we do well to take heed, as unto it light that shineth in a 
dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts" 

Q. What is the fourth Proof? 

A. The New Testament Church is erected upon the foundation of the apostles and 
Prophets. The doctrines taught by the apostles and prophets. Eph. ii. 20. "And are built 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief 
corner stone". 



Q. What is the fifth proof? 

A. What was recorded in the Old Testament was so recorded for the edification and 
comfort of the church in all subsequent ages. Rom 15 " For whatsoever things were 
written aforetime were written for our learning (instruction), that we, through patience 
and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope. 

Q. What is the sixth proof? 

A. The Old Testament writings were the means of enlightening Timothy in the way of 
salvation ; and still contain the instructions requisite to furnish the man of God for "every 
good work." 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. "From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which 
are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof; for 
correction, for instruction in righteousness-that the man of God may be perfect, 
thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 

Q. What is the seventh proof ? 

A. The doctrines of the Old are substantially the same with those of the New Testament. 
Rom. xvi. 25, 20. "Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, 
and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was 
kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the 
prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all 
nations for the obedience of faith." See also Rom. i. 2, 3. Acts xxvi. 22, 23. The law is the 
same. Mat. xxii. 37-40. 

Q. What is the eighth proof ? 

A. Without the Old Testament we could not fully understand the New: nor demonstrate 
that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. Luke xxiv. 27, 44. "And beginning at 
Moses and the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things 
concerning, himself. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you 
while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law 
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me." Also Acts x. 43; xvii. 
11 ; xxvi. 22. Rom. iii. 21. 

Q. Are the Scriptures to such an extent the rule of faith, that there is nothing left to the 
wisdom and discretion of the rulers and teachers of the church ? 

A. In matters essential to salvation, and what relates to the institutes of worship, 
government, and order, the Scriptures are an absolute rule; but in carrying out the 
principles and putting into operation the ordinances of religion, there are some things left 
to the wisdom and prudence of the officers of the church-but here there is no latitude 
allowed beyond what is the evident meaning and design of the Scriptures themselves in 
these matters. I Cor. xiv. 40. "Let all things be done decently and in order." 

Q. Is everything pertaining to faith and manners revealed in the Scriptures directly and 
distinctly in so many words? or are many things to be learned from them inferentially or 
by legitimate consequence ? 



A. The Scriptures are a full and complete revelation, and great principles are directly and 
plainly taught; yet many things of importance both of faith and manners are learned by 
legitimate consequence, from other truths distinctly revealed, and from approved 
scriptural examples, and such truths are equally a part of the Word of God with those 
principles, which are taught by explicit revelation. 

Q. Can you give an example of the inferential mode of reasoning, or by implication, from 
the Scripture? 

A. Yes. The highest example-that of Christ himself; who proved the doctrine of the 
resurrection of the dead by a legitimate consequence, from a fact revealed in the Old 
Testament Scriptures. Matt. xxii. 31, 32. "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, 
have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of 
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God the dead, but 
of the living." 

Q. Are not the Scriptures a complete and adequate rule of faith and manners ? or is there 
a deficiency to be supplied from a treasury of unwritten traditions, intrusted to the alleged 
successors of the apostles ? 

A. The Scriptures are a complete and adequate rule of faith and manners, and the alleged 
deposition of traditions is an invention of "The man of Sin," in support of his "lying 
wonders," and "doctrines of devils." 

Q. How is this manifest? 

11. It is manifest, 1. In the fact that the Scriptures are profitable for all theoretic and 
practical purposes, both in teaching matters of faith and moulding the manners. 2 Tim. iii. 
10, 17. 

Q. Where is found the second evidence ? 

A. In the fact that God has expressly forbidden any addition to, or diminution of his 
revealed will. Deut. iv. 2. "Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither 
Shall ye diminish aught from it." Gal. i. 8. "But though we, or an angel from Heaven, 
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be 
accursed." Rev. xxii, 18. "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy 
of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues 
that are written in this book." 

Q. What is the third proof? 

A. In that the Word of God is perfect, containing all that is requisite for the conversion of 
the souls of men. Ps, xix. 7, 8. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the 
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the commandment of the Lord is 
pure, enlightening the eyes." 

Q. What is the fourth evidence ? 

A. In that they were given that men by them might be put in possession of eternal life, 
hence they can be deficient in nothing essential to this end. John xx. 3 1 . "But these are 
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing 



ye might have life through his name." Also, I John v. 13 ; Rom. xvi. 

Q. What is the fifth proof? 

A. The Scriptures are given as a rule of faith, hence they must be complete and adequate; 

for a rule, to answer its end, will not admit of diminution or addition. Rom. xvi. 24. The 

doctrines of the Scriptures are said to be "made known to all nations for the obedience of 

faith." 

Q. What is the sixth evidence ? 

A. Traditions are distinctly rejected. Mat. xv. (f, 9. '! Thus have ye made the 
commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. But in vain they do worship me, 
teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Also, Is. xxix. 13 14; Is. viii. 20. 

Q. What is the seventh argument ? 

A. No satisfactory reason can be given why God should commit one part of satisfactory 
word to writing, and the other part equally essential to the salvation of the church, to be 
transmitted viva voce-because the traditions of men are uncertain at best, and liable to be 
greatly corrupted in the lapse of time. 

Q. What is the eighth argument ? 

A. There is no rule given by which can be determined the genuineness of traditions, and 
all that can be pleaded is that such is the testimony and the authority of the church, which 
is itself a matter of controversy. 

Q. What is the ninth argument against tradition ? 

A. The origin of traditions is dubious, and their authority uncertain, their meaning 

perplexed and ambiguous, and the impossibility of discovering a reason for them ; the 

only safe course is, to adhere rigidly to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and 

manners. 

Q. Is it true that the Roman apostasy makes tradition a chief part of the rule of faith ? 
A. It is undoubtedly true. 1 . Thus speak the writers of the Catechism of the Council of 
Trent, p. 17 : " All the doctrines of Christianity are derived from the word of God, which 
includes Scripture and tradition!" 2. thus speaks the Roman Catholic authorised version : 
Note on 2 Tim. iii. 16, " If we would have this whole rule of Christian faith and practice, 
we must not be content with those scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that 
is with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along 
with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the 
apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it. " 3. And the creed of Pope 
Pius makes Holy Mother church the only judge of the true sense of the scripture. "I also 
admit the sacred scriptures, according to the sense which the holy mother church has 
held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of 
the holy scriptures ; nor will I ever take or interpret otherwise than according to the 
unanimous consent of the Fathers." 

Q. Does not the Roman church in this matter of traditions follow the example of the 



apostate Jews, (before and at the time of our Saviour,) who made void the law by their 
traditions ? 

A. Yes. The Jews divided the law into two parts, written and oral. The later, they taught, 
was received by Moses on Mount Sinai, and delivered by him to the care of Joshua, who 
deposited it with the 70 elders, by whom it was communicated to the prophets, and these 
intrusted it to the greater synagogue, and from them it was transmitted to future 
generations, until it was collected and treasured up in the Talmud. In like manner the 
Roman Pontiffs have invented a twofold revelation, the one written and the other 
unwritten, the substance of the latter being, as they allege, those things which Christ and 
his apostles taught and transacted, but of which they have transmitted no written record, 
but which are now exhibited in a tangible hum in the peculiar doctrines and ceremonies 
of the Roman church. 

Q. Is not the rise of this system of tradition easily accounted for ? 

A. Yes. Those who had seen and heard the apostles naturally treasured up in their 
memories many of their observations and opinions, and brought them forward in support 
of their sentiments. 'Great attention would be paid to a man who could affirm, "I heard 
the apostle Paul, or Peter, say so and so." In process of time, the true words of the 
apostles, by passing through so many hands, would be corrupted and gradually lost ; for it 
is utterly impossible to preserve to any lengthened period what is dependent upon oral 
tradition. Nevertheless the plea was found too advantageous to be suffered to die away. 
When new opinions were broached, and new rites invented, an alleged apostolical 
tradition supplied the place of scriptural authority ; the decree of some council secured its 
reception, and all objection would soon be silenced by the dread of incurring the 
vengeance of " Holy Church." But there is one who has said, "Ye have made the 
commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." 

Q. Is not this whole matter of tradition among Jews and Papists, an artifice of Satan to 
seduce men from the simplicity that is in Christ? 

A. Yes: The "Traditions of the Elders" was an artifice of Satan to seduce the Jews from 
the practice of the written law, to extinguish this law given to Israel. In like manner the 
tradition of the Romans is an invention of the adversary to lead men astray from the truth 
as it is in Jesus, and to extinguish its light in the church ; and when men " love darkness 
rather than light," they are given up, judicially, to follow in the devious path of their own 
"invention :" Rom, i. 28, " And even as they did not like to retain God in their 
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.' 2 Th. ii. 10-12, "Because they 
received not the love of the truth that they might be saved ; for this cause God shall sew 
them strong delusion that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who 
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 

Q. Is not Timothy exhorted 1 Tim. vi. 20, to keep with care certain principles and 
observances intrusted to him; and the Thessalonians-to hold fast the traditions which they 
had been taught? 2 Th. ii. 15. 

A. Yes. Yet in the case of the deposit made with Timothy, the form of sound words, or 
the gifts and graces specified its 2 Tim, i. 13, 14, and in the case of the Thessalonians the 
traditions referred to designate simply a two-fold mode then employed by the apostle, of 
delivering the will of God viz; Viva Voce and by writing, both exhibiting the same "form 



of sound words." 

Q. Are not the Scriptures, (or God speaking in the scriptures,) the supreme judge in all 
matters of controversy, and in the interpretation of Scripture? or is this the prerogative of 
the church or Roman Pontiff? 

A. The former is the truth. The holy scriptures, (or God speaking in them,) is the supreme 
and infallible judge in religious controversies. 

Q. What is the first proof? 

A. God directs us to this tribunal only. Is. viii. 20, "To the law and to the testimony, if 
they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Also Luke 
xvi. 29. 

Q. What is the second proof ? 

A. The example of Christ and the apostles, who in all their controversies respecting 
matters of faith, refer to the scriptures as supreme authority, from whose decision there is 
no appeal. Matt. iv. Christ repelled the temptations of the devil by "It is written." Also 
xxii. 32, He proves the resurrection by an appeal to the scriptures. Jno. v. 39, He directs 
to them as bearing testimony to his missionship. Also Luke xxiv. 44. And the apostle 
Paul. Acts xxvi. 22, "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, 
witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophet 
Moses did say should come." Acts xvii. 11, The Bereans are commended for resorting to 
the scriptures as the supreme and infallible judge. The Pharisees and Sadducees 
condemned for their ignorance of them as the infallible judge. Matt, xxii., xv. 3, " Why 
do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ? Ye do err not knowing 
the scriptures." 

Q. What is the third proof? 

A. All other judges (church and Pontiffs) are liable to err, but the scriptures are infallible. 
l.Jno. iv. 1, " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God; 
because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Is. viii. 20 ; Acts xvii. 11. 

Q. What is the fourth proof ? 

A. As God is the author of the scriptures, he alone can be their infallible interpreter. Men 
are prone to err. James iv: 12, "There is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy; 
who art thou that judgest another?" See Matt, xxiii. 8-10. 

Q. What is the fifth proof? 

A. Neither the divine author of the Scripture, nor any of the apostles, have anywhere 

designated this infallible judge; distinct from and independent of the Scriptures 

themselves. 

Q. What is the sixth argument ? 

A. The Roman Pontiffs have not exercised their alleged infallibility in composing the 
controversies which rend the unity of the Papal Church-between the Thomists and 
Scotists-the Dominicans and Jesuits-and the Jesuits and Jansenists, &c, so to quell which 



would quickly redound to the honour of the Papal See. 

Q. What is the seventh proof? 

A. The church cannot be constituted the infallible Judge; this would give her the power of 

deciding in her own favour, as the controversy respects her own power and infallibility. 

Q. What is the eighth argument ? 

A. The same argument applies to the Pope, councils and the fathers. It would be to make 
them judges in their own case. Besides, they are prone to err, and have erred, and 
flagrantly contradicted each other, council against council, Pope against Pope, father 
against father. Besides, not a few of the Popes have been heretics and profane and 
abandoned men, the pontiffs themselves being witnesses. 

Q. Dues not Christ constitute the church the Supreme Judge in controversies ? Mat, xviii. 
17. " Tell it to the church. " 

A. By no means : because the injunction does not relate to matters of faith but to private 
offences, matters of scandal according to the Jewish discipline, who were accustomed to 
excommunicate the contumacious. 

Q. Do not all Protestants hold the doctrine of the supreme and ultimate supremacy of the 
Word of God in religious controversy ? 

A. It is a Protestant doctrine, and, whilst it is held in theory, it is often violated in practice 
by the adoption of many principles and practices, for which there cannot be given-a thus 
saith the Lord-and which are met by the challenge-w/zo hath required this at thy hand! 

SECTION IV. 



Civil Government the Moral Ordinance of God. 



Q. What is civil government ? 

A. It is a divine institution for the government of mankind in their outward secular 
relations, in subservience to their spiritual and eternal welfare. Rom. xiii. 3, 4. "For rulers 
are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou not be afraid of the power-do that 
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same-for he is the minister of God to thee 
for good. " 

Q. Is not civil government a matter merely of human expediency, originating in the 
necessities and convenience of the human race? 

A. No. It grows out of the relation that naturally and necessarily exists between God and 
intellectual moral creatures, and the relations existing between those creatures towards 
one another. 

Q. How is this manifest? 

A. In the fact that the essence of all civil power resided in Adam, upon whom God, at his 



creation, conferred the authority necessary for the exercise of civil government over 
subordinate moral agents, and over all earthly property. Ps. viii. 5-8. "For thou hast made 
him (man) a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things 
under his feet; all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field ; the fowl of the air, and 
the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the sea." 

Q. Is civil magistracy founded in grace ? 

A. Civil magistracy is not founded in grace, but proceeds from God, not as the God of 
grace, but as the God of nature. It springs from him as the supreme moral governor of the 
universe, having its foundation, as we have stated in stance, in natural principles, which 
belong to the constitution of man, and not in the mediatorial system; At the same time (as 
we have proved in general, and as will be shown in the next section in relation to civil 
government in particular) God has placed the management of the whole affairs of the 
moral universe in the hands of his Son as Mediator. 

Q. Is God, indeed, the supreme moral governor of the human race? 

A. Yes. Although man has by apostasy thrown off his allegiance to the Creator, yet God 
is the Lord of man, and claims his subjection. Ps. xlvii. 7. "For God is the king of all the 
earth." Dan. iv. 34. "1 blessed the Most high and I praised and honoured Him that liveth 
for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from 
generation to generation." Ps. xxix. "The Lord sitteth king forever." Jer, x. 10. "The Lord 
is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king" Is. xliii. 1 5 "I am the Lord, 
your holy one, the Creator of Israel you king". 

Q. Is civil magistracy, as a legitimate authority, the ordinance of God? 
A. Yes. Rom. xiii. 1, 2. "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no 
power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore resisteth 
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. " 

Q. Does not this passage teach, that any government which has a being in Providence, 
however immoral its constitution and administration, is the ordinance of God? 
A. By no means, but describes a government possessed of moral attributes consistent 
with the nature of an ordinance of God. 

Q. How do you make this evident t 

A. It is evident, 1. From the radical meaning of the term power, e^ovaia, derived from 
e£eaTL and signifying rightful, lawful authority, that which is licensed of God as 
agreeable to his own moral nature, from whom all our rights are derived. 2. From the 
legitimate meaning of the phrase higher powers. By comparing the text with Phil. ii. 3, 
we find the word higher translated better, and thus learn the power to which obedience is 
demanded, is a moral, or more excellent power, excelling in moral character. 3. The 
moral character of the power, as the ordinance of God, appears from the characteristics of 
the ruler. He is entitled the "Minister of God, " a representative of the Most High in his 
rule, a" terror to evil doers, " a "praise to them that do well". It is as possessed of these 
attributes only that he can claim to be the ordinance of God. The reverse exhibits the 



ordinance of the devil. 4. God cannot, without denying himself ordain (in the sense of the 
text, as an institution that meets his approbation,) an immoral power. 5. The submission 
required is for conscience sake; conscience can never be bound by any immoral 
obligation. "It is under the law to Christ." 

Q. Do not many professed Christians interpret the passage as demanding allegiance, for 
conscience, sake, to "powers that then were?" 

A. Yes. A number do; because it is agreeable to their worldly interests, and is 
correspondent with their false theory of civil government. But, says an eminent Seceder, 
"In this text we have obviously a general statement laid down of what magistrates ought 
to be. " 

Q. Is there not abundant evidence in the page itself, that the apostle speaks generally of 
the character and duties of magistracy, and not with particular reference to the tyrannical 
and wicked rulers, who, at that time, swayed the sceptre o/Rome?I 
A. Yes. The apostle says, "Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Did 
Nero answer this character ? The apostle says, "Do that which is good and thou shalt 
have praise of the same." Had the Christians this? They were the best subjects in the 
Roman Empire. But had they "praise" for being so? Why, the merest tyro in ecclesiastical 
history knows that in spite of all the loveliness of their conduct, and their distinguished 
benevolence towards their very enemies, on the simple ground of their being Christians, 
they were deprived of their civil rights, and persecuted even to imprisonment and death. 
Was this on the part of 'the magistrates to be "the minister of God" to them "for good? " 

Q. Is not the phrase ordained of God Susceptible of a twofold interpretation? 

A. Yes. Things are ordained either by the order of his council or providential will, or they 

are ordained by the order of His word, or preceptive will. 

Q. Which of these is our rule ? 

A. The former is God's rule, the latter is ours. Deut. xxix. 29. " The secret things belong 
unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed unto us and to Our Children 
forever," that we may do all the words of this law. 

Q. According to which of these is civil government "ordained of God ?" 
A. According to the latter, civil government is " the ordinance of God to men for good." 
"Ordained signifies that the powers are of God ordained ; that is, are circumscribed by 
certain rules of right and honesty, within which rules, unless they contain themselves, 
they degenerate from the ordinance of God: " Pareus. "The powers here (Rom. xiii.) are 
said to be ordained of God, and verse 2, to be the ordinance of God. The apostle speaks in 
the general, without application to the Roman or any other, but on the contrary, it is stood 
upon that he intends his precept of a lawfully called' magistrate: " Herle. 

Q. Can you give any scriptural examples or illustrations o/this interpretation? 
A. Yes. 1. According to God's providential will Israel rejected Samuel, whilst according 
to God's preceptive will, they should have continued Samuel's government and not 
sought a king. Hosea viii. 4, "They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made 



princes and I knew it not" Did not approve of the deed. 2. By the former Athaliah 
usurped the government, by the latter she should have resigned the government, and 
yielded obedience to the posterity of Ahaziah. 3. Adonijah the usurper, though he had the 
pretence of hereditary right, and also possession by providence, was, according to God's 
preceptive will, forced to yield the government to Solomon. I Kings ii. 13, "Thou 
knowest," says Adonijah, "that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces 
on me, that I should reign ; howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my 
brother's; for it was his from the Lord. " 

Q. Have tyrants and usurpers no other right to rule than the fact of their elevation in 
God's sovereign providence, who sends them as he does the tempest and plague, to 
chastise the guilty nations ? 

A. They have no other claim, as the scriptures abundantly testify. Zech. xi. 6, " I will no 
more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the Lord: but lo, I will deliver the men every 
one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of 'his king; and they shall smite the land, 
and out of their hand I will not deliver them." Is. xlii., "Who gave Jacob for a spoil, 
and Israel to the robbers, did not the Lord, he against whom we have sinned." Also Is. x. 
5, 6; Job xii. 6, Hence called by the holy spirit by the names of the most unclean ravenous 
beasts. 1. Lions: Prov. xxviii. 15 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; Zeph. iii. 3. 2. Bears : Prov. xxviii. 15; 
Dan. vii. 5-1 7. 3. Bulls: Ps. xxii.; Amos iv. 1. 4. Dragons : Is. Ii, 9. 5. Serpents: Is. xxvii. 
1. Yea, leopards, wolves, foxes, dogs, fishers and hunters, &c, &c. See Concordance. 

Q. Is civil government, then, a moral institution as it is the ordinance of God? 
A. Yes: It is designed of God to be a representation of his own moral authority and rule. 

Q. How do you make this appear? 

A. In addition to what is stated above, it is evident, in the first place, that civil 
government is instituted for the preservation of moral order among the human race. Rom. 
xiii. 3. According to this text, rulers are ordained to promote "good works," by the 
exhibition of the rewards which follow them, and the pains which ensue upon the 
practice of the contrary. 

Q. What is the second evidence? 

A. The great object of this ordinance of God is to promote the glory of God, inasmuch as 
the magistrate in the administration of this ordinance is the minister of God, and as his 
minister must give a representation his rule of God's moral nature; and of course have in 
charge the honour of God, and should suffer no encroachment upon the glory of His 
throne. Every species of immorality is dishonouring to God, and cannot be countenanced 
by his minister. 2 Samuel xxiii. "The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me, 
he that ruleth over men, MUST BF JUST, RULING IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD." 

Q. How is it further evident? 

A. In that magistracy as instituted of God to promote the happiness of mankind, for the 
ruler is not only the minister Of God, BUT THE MINISTER OF GOD TO MEN FOR 
GOOD. God has ordained him to be the instrument in diffusing enjoyment among his 
subjects, by securing their Obedience to the immoral law, decreed by eternal wisdom. 



"Whose ways are pleasantness, and all her paths peace." 

Q. What is the fourth evidence that civil government is a moral ordinance? 
A. Inasmuch as it is ordained to preserve the rights of God among the human family. The 
rights of God are expressed in the first table of the Decalogue, as will appear more fully 
in another section of this work. "Render unto God the things that are God's." 

Q. Wherein does it further appear? 

A. Its morality appears, moreover, in this, that in order to render it effectual in securing 
glory to God, and happiness to man, the magistrate is armed with rewards and pun- 
ishments, to be dispensed with justice according to the law of God, -Of which he is the 
minister. 1. Rewards: Rom. xiii. 3, " Do that which is good, and thou shalt have PRAISE 
of the same!" The magistrate is the encourager of practical morality and piety. 2. 
Punishments: v. 4, "But if thou do that which is evil be afraid, for he beareth not the 
sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that 
doeth evil. His power as a revenger appealing to the principle of fear, tends to prevent 
crime; and he doth not bear the sword in vain-he must actually take revenge on him that 
doeth evil. The object of this revenge is not merely the reformation of the criminal, nor 
the influence of terror to prevent crime, he is a revenger ordained its the minister of God 
to show the righteous indignation of Jehovah in punishing the guilty. In the capital 
punishment of the murderer, its object evidently cannot be his reformation; and whatever 
modern visionaries may dream, every Bible believer must admit that the judge of all the 
earth did once arm the civil power with the sword to take away life. He was, at least, then 
an avenger; but Paul says he is so still. The word avenger admits of no other 
interpretation. Could we say of a father who chastises his Child that he is a revenger ? 
Might we say of our redeemer, when he chastises those whom he loveth, that he is a 
revenger ? The magistrate then is authorized to take vengeance, to execute wrath upon 
criminals; and thus in a righteous, but awful manner, illustrates the moral nature of 
civil government as it is the ordinance of God. 

Q. Does not the principle upon which capital punishment is justified prove the morality 
of the ordinance of civil government? 

A. Yes. Capital punishment is inflicted to sustain the divine justice, which he exercises 
by the hand of the magistrate who acts as his minister; nothing is done here by the 
temerity of men, but everything by the authority of God who commands it; for we can 
find no valid objection to the infliction of public vengeance, unless the justice of God be 
restrained from the punishment of crimes, and who can lay restraints upon the Judge of 
all the earth, who will do right? Paul says of the magistrate, "That he beareth not the 
sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that 
doeth evil." 

Q. Does not the dignity of the title with which God honours magistrates show the 
morality of the ordinance ? 

A. Yes. They are called "Gods" Ps. lxxxii. 1-6. This is not an appellation of trivial 
importance, for it implies that they have their command from God, that they are invested 
with his authority, and are altogether his representatives, and act as his vicegerents; and 
that their commission has been given to them by God, to serve him in that office, and, as 



Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges whom they appointed, to "judge notjor men 
butt for the Lord. " If magistrates, then, are the vicegerents of God, it "behoves them to 
watch with all care, earnestness, and diligence, that in their administration they may 
exhibit to men an image, as it were, of the providence, care, goodness, benevolence, and 
justice of God," and in this manner beautifully illustrate the moral excellence of this 
ordinance of the Deity. 

Q. Does not its moral nature further appear from the design of civil government as God's 
ordinance ? 

A. Yes. This design is thus forcibly stated by Calvin; "It is designed as long as we live in 
this world to cherish and support the external worship of God, to preserve the pure 
doctrine of religion, to defend the constitution of the Church, to regulate our lives in a 
manner requisite for the society of man, to form our manners to civil justice, to promote 
our concord with each other, and to establish general peace and tranquillity." 

Q. Is not its moral nature finally evident, inasmuch as it is ordained to preserve and foster 
the rights and liberties of mankind ? 

A. "To this object," says Calvin, " the magistrates ought to apply their greatest diligence, 
that they suffer not the liberty, of which they are constituted guardians, to be in any 
respect diminished , much less to be violated. If they are inactive and unconcerned about 
this, they are perfidious to their office and traitors to their country. " 

Q. To what kind of submission is this ordinance of God entitled ? 

A. It is entitled to conscientious submission. Rom. xiii. 5, "Wherefore ye must needs be 
subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake:" from a love to God's 
ordinance, and respect for his authority, exercised by his vicegerent according to his law. 

Q. It is not true, then, that every power that is set up by the majority of the people, and 
exists by the providence of God, is to be acknowledged and obeyed for conscience? 
A. It is not true. For the will of the people is not the law in regard to the nature of 
magistracy, but the will of God; and as the will of the majority often sets up immoral 
constitution of government, in violation of the moral character of magistracy, as it is the 
ordinance of God, hence a distinction must ever be kept up, in respect of obligation, 
between magistrates set up by the preceptive will of God, and such as exist by his 
providential will only; and the slavish dogma, "That all providential magistrates are also 
preceptive, " is forever to be excluded. Hosea viii. 4, " They have set up kings, but not by 
me. They have made princes, and I know it not. " 

Q. Which among the various forms of government approaches nearest the Scripture 
model, as to its outward constitution ? 

A. The Republican form-such as was possessed by the Israelites before they wickedly and 
rebelliously "set up a king. " 

Q. Will this be the form in the millennium? 

A. There are many arguments in favour of this opinion. 1. The gracious promise, Is. i. 20, 

"1 will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: 



afterwards thou shalt be the city of righteousness, the faithful city." 2. From its adaptation 
to fulfil another prophecy -Jer. Hi. 17, "At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne 
of the Lord, and all nations shall be gathered to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem." This 
can easily be verified by representation. 3. The Scriptural principle, that the people have 
a voice in the election of their rulers: and though a monarchy may be elective, yet such a 
form will not so fully as a republic preserve the liberty of the Subject. 4. The title king, in 
Scripture, does not signify an king in the vulgar sense, but any one possessed of the 
supreme power, and is applicable to the President of a Republic. 

Q. Is not civil government, in one point of view, the ordinance of man? 
A. Yes. It is in one view the ordinance of man, a human creation. 1 Pet, ii. 13, Forms of 
magistracy, or the laws for the regulation of the commonwealth, are the ordinance of 
man. It is lawful for men to model their constitutions of government in such a manner as 
may appear must suitable to them, provided such constitutions, in their principles and 
distribution of power, be in nothing contrary to the divine law. Deut. xvii. 14-17, 20, 
"When thou art come unto the land, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a 
king over me. Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God 
shall choose. Thou shalt not set a stranger over thee. But he shall not multiply horses to 
himself: neither shall he multiply wives: neither silver and gold. That his heart be not 
lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment." 

Q. Is this view of civil government, as being the moral ordinance of God, a peculiar 
doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian Church? 

A. It is. The prevailing sentiment is, that civil government is merely a matter of human 
expediency, to be regulated entirely by the will of the majority, and consequently, that 
every system which the majority sets up is to be sustained as a lawful power, even though 
in its principles and distribution of power it tramples under foot the rights of God, and 
robs the subject of civil liberty. 

SECTION V. 



On Christ's Headship over the Nations. 

Q. What is meant by the term nations? 

A. Civil associations-men existing in civil or political institutions; including the office 
bearers, by whom the laws are administered, as well as the people at large, for whose 
good they are appointed to govern. 

Q. What is meant by Headship in the present application of the term? 

A. A headship of authority and moral supremacy, not a headship of providential rule or 

physical control. 

Q. Are we to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ exercises a moral supremacy over the 

civil or political associations of men, simply as such? 

A. Yes. Directly in their secular or political character, he claims dominion over them, and 



demands their public recognition of his authority. 

Q. Is Jesus Christ possessed of peculiar moral fitness to exercise dominion over the 

nations? 

A. Yes he is the Son of God and the Son of Man God manifest in the flesh-and as such is 

qualified to exercise this authority. Is. ix. 6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is 

given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called 

Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." 

Q. In what character does he exercise dominion over the nation-, in their political 

relations? 

A. In his Mediatorial character, in which alone, as has been demonstrated, he is the 

subject of a gift. 

Q. Is this authority conferred as a gift upon Him? 

A. Yes. It is the gift of the Father. Christ himself says, "All power is delivered unto me 
of my Father." Luke x. 22. And the Father says, "I will make him my first born Higher 
than the kings of any land." Psa. lxxxix. 27. 

Q. Is it necessary that Christ should possess this mediatorial dominion over the nations ? 
A. Yes. It is necessary that he should have power over the nations, that he might 
commission his ministers to go within their limits, and preach the everlasting gospel 
(Matt, xxviii. 18,19). Unless his authority were paramount to existing governments, it 
would have been a usurpation inconsistent with divine perfection to have sent his 
ambassadors to negotiate with the inhabitants of the earth. 

Q. For what other reason should Christ have power over the nations? 

A. To make the Gospel efficient. The mediatory power to make his people willing could 

not reach into any nation over which his authority did not extend. The kings of the earth 

have sufficient forces to banish from their dominions the heralds of the cross ; and there 

is enmity in the hearts of men sufficient to reject the Gospel of God, and to render 

its preaching all together abortive, unless the mediatorial efficiency accompany the 

ambassadors of Christ, and the message which they bring. 

Q. What other reason makes it necessary? 

A. It is necessary that he should rule the nations as the reward of his sufferings. Phil. ii. 8, 
9, "Wherefore" (because he suffered) "God hath highly exalted him and given him a 
name which is above every name," &c. Christ in his humiliation was subject to rulers. Is. 
xlix. 7. He sat before them to be tried and judged, and although perfectly innocent, the 
Lord of life condescended to suffer the sentence of death, passed by an earthly ruler, to be 
executed upon himself. In his exalted state he must be ruler in the kingdoms of men; 
have a right to demand their submission to his authority, and take such measures as will 
secure the fulfilment of all his purposes respecting them. 

Q. Why is it further necessary? 

A. It is necessary that Immanuel should have power over the nations and their respective 



governments, as the guardians of his Church in the midst of her enemies, and as the 
terror of all those who are his foes; otherwise his children might be in a situation in which 
he could not regulate them, and his enemies might act with impunity against him. Ps. ex. 
1-3 "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of city strength out of Zion : rule thou in the 
midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." 

Q. Are not the promises of the Father to the Son a forcible testimony to the truth of the 
doctrine of his mediatorial dominion over the nations? 

A. Yes. The Father has given a number of promises; to this effect, and they are 
conclusive proof of his dominion over the nations. 1. Ps. lxxxix. 19, 26, 27, "Then thou 
spakest in vision to my holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I 
have exalted one chosen out of the people. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my 
God, and the Rock of my Salvation. Also, I will make him my first born higher than the 
kings of the earth." 2. Ps. 2:8, "Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen (nations) for 
thine inheritance, the uttermost parts of time earth for thy possession,"-upon which grant 
the injunction of submission is issued to the rulers and judges -vs 10-12, "Be wise now, 
therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and 
rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son., lest he be angry." 3. Is. liii. 12, "Therefore will I 
divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong ; because 
he hath poured out his soul unto death." 

Q. Does not the prophet Daniel proclaim the fulfilment of the promises of the Father, in 
his exhibition of the actual investiture of the Lord Jesus Christ with this royal dominion 
over the nations? 

A Yes. Daniel in the seventh chapter, verses 13 and 14 of his prophecy exhibits this 
sublime event. "I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the son of man came with 
the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before 
him. And there was given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, 
and languages should serve him." In the context we have an array of the fierce nations of 
the earth, as enemies of the church, frowning upon her members. The Chaldean, Medo- 
Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires. The latter, especially under its antichristian form. 
The ancient of days, Jehovah, occupies the throne. The angels conveying into his 
presence the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, in our nature, and upon him, by the 
authority of Jehovah, the Father, dominion is conferred, which extends over all nations. 

Q. Was not a similar representation of this sublime scene made to John the apostle while 
in his banishment to Patmos? 

A. Yes. In Rev. v. 1, 2, 5, 7. 1. This sealed book contains the mind or purposes of 
Jehovah, or the outline of providential events, concerning the church and the nations of 
the earth, from the days of John in Patmos until the end of time. 2. The opening of the 
seals not only reveals the events recorded in the volume, but with a view also to their 
actual accomplishment. This is obvious from the next chapter in which the six seals are 
broken, by which judgments Pagan Rome is utterly subverted. 3. The placing of the book 
in the hands of the Lamb to loose its seals, gave the Lamb full power over the book and 
all its contents, not only as matters to be revealed, but as events to be accomplished. 4. 



The Lamb deserved this distinction. "He prevailed, conquered, to open the book and 
loose the seven seals thereof." By the merit of his blood as " the Lamb slain," he obtained 
the right to administer the kingdom of providence, in order to apply his redemption to its 
objects. The same idea is taught in Phil. ii. 8, 9. The conclusion is obvious. The lamb, the 
Mediator, has Lordship over the nations of the earth, as he, is the administrator of the 
kingdom of providence. 

Q. Is not the Headship of Christ over the nations implied in the universality of the 
mediatorial supremacy ? 

A. Yes. 1. The declarations, Mat. xxviii. 18 ; Col. ii. 10 ; 1 Peter iii. 22. "All power is 
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Christ-which is the head of all principality and 
power. Who is on the right hand of God. Angels, mid authorities, and powers being made 
subject to him - imply very distinctly his dominion over the nations. 2. The idea of 
universality is often expressed not merely by a general term, but by the enumeration of 
particulars, and by the exclusion of all exceptions. Eph. i. 21 ; Heb. ii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27. 
"And set him at his own right hand-far above all principalities, and power, and might, and 
dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is 
to come."-" For in that he put all things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not 
put under him. " When he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that "He is 
excepted which did put till things under him." It must be passing strange if, after these 
statements, the nations are excepted from the mediatorial rule. 

Q. Do not the titles given to Christ clearly demonstrate his headship of the nations? 
A. Yes. They are most satisfactory and conclusive, because it cannot be conceived that 
the Holy Ghost would dishonour the Mediator with a series of unmeaning titles. He is 
"the spirit of truth," and does not bear false witness. 

Q. What is the first title? 

A. He is entitled, Ps. lxxxix. 27, the FIRST BORN - higher then the kings of the earth. 
To the first born belonged the dominion. It is not as the Son of God essentially consider- 
ed, but as Mediator, that he is here described as "made " higher than the kings of the 
earth. Besides the words might have been rendered Most High, or supreme over the kings 
of the earth. }TvS? is often used to express the supremacy of God, and is translated 
"Most High" Dan. iv. 32-34. The dominion of Messiah over civil rulers on the one hand, 
and the subjection of such to him on the other, are thus clearly implied in this title. 

Q. Which is the second title? 

A. In Ps. xxii. 28, he is designated "Governor among the nations." This psalm 
unquestionably refers to Christ as mediator. The preceding verse foretells the extension 
of the church of Christ. "All kindreds of the nations shall worship before him." And as 
what follows is introduced as accounting for the universal spread of the kingdom of 
Messiah, it must be considered as referring to the same illustrious personage. "For the 
kingdom is the Lord's, and he is the Governor among the nations." This eminent title, 
consequently, must recognise the mediatorial dominion over the nations. 

Q. Which is the third title? 



A. In the prophecy of Jeremiah there occurs the following passage: "Forasmuch as there 
is none like unto the O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would 
not fear thee, KING OF NATIONS !" Jer. x. 4-7. Nations here means organized civil 
bodies. King is title of office, expressive of supreme rule or government. He to whom 
the title belongs is the true and living God, the God of Israel, as distinguished from 
heathen idols. But as the God of Israel is God in Christ, the title may be regarded as 
equally applicable to the Redeemer. 

Q. Which is the fourth? 

A. The writer of the Apocalypse proclaims Jesus Christ "THE PRINCE OF THE KINGS 
OF THE EARTH." Rev. i. 5. There can be no room to doubt for a moment, that it is 
Christ as Mediator who is here spoken of as having the supremacy over civil rulers, 
supreme and subordinate -all in civil authority, whether in the legislative, judiciary, or 
executive branches of Government. Of such Jesus Christ is PRINCE, apxcov, ruler, 
Lord, chief, the first in power, authority, and dominion. 

Q. Which is the fifth title? 

A. The most splendid title of all remains to be noticed. It occurs twice in the Revelation 
of John xvii. 14 ; xix. 16. "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Land) shall 
overcome them, for he is LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS. "-"His name is 
called the Word of God -and he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written- 
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." This title teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ 
has authority over kings as kings. "King of kings" clearly implies a sovereignty over 
kings in their regal character, and not merely as private members of his kingdom. A 
parallel case illustrates this. Esth. vii. 12. "Artaxerxes king of kings." The empire of the 
Persian monarch was comprised of 127 provinces or minor kingdoms. Now, was 
Artaxerxes king of all the inferior kings of his empire as men only, and as ordinary 
subjects? Or was he their sovereign in their royal character as they occupied their regal 
thrones? In the latter certainly. Would one of those petty kings of his empire dared to 
have said, "I am your subject as a man, but as a king on my throne I am your equal, and 
independent of your authority." The Persian "King of kings" would have soon crushed 
him as a rebel. The title therefore, in its specific import, teaches that Christ is the 
sovereign of kings in their regal official character and station. The title further teaches, 
that kings and the nations which they govern bear the same political relation to Christ, 
that the nations bear to their immediate kings. That is, kings and their subjects are the 
subjects of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and should as such be obedient to his authority. 

Q. Does not Rev. iii. 7, "He that hath the key of David," teach Christ's civil dominion 
over the nations ? 

A. Yes. "The key of David" is the symbol of civil rule. This is illustrated by the case of 
Eliakim, Is. xxii. 20-22, of whom it is said, "the key of the house of David will I lay upon 
his shoulder;" and, according to which promise, he was called to the government of Judah 
and Jerusalem. It was civil power that Eliakim exercised as treasurer to Hezekiah. He 
succeeded to the treasurer's robe and key of office. "The key is an emblem of trust; and 
the expression alludes to the fashion of keys, in old times, which were long and made 
like a hook, and then laid upon the shoulder, and worn there as a badge of office - Lowth. 



"The key of the house of David," is, therefore, the badge of civil rule, and, as applied to 
Christ, presents him as the son of David according to the flesh, and as succeeding to 
David's throne, and exercising dominion as the ruler of the nations. David was not the 
head of the church, but of the state; although as the minister of God, he exercised a 
guardian but not a sovereign care over the church. He was the type of Christ, as the 
governor of the nations, making all things contribute to the good of the church-or of true 
religion. 

Q. Was not human society, upon the apostasy of the first Adam, (whom we have seen the 
first example of civil sovereignty) subjected to another and more distinguished head- 
THE SECOND ADAM, THE LORD FROM HEAVEN, in order that the race, under 
him, might be brought back to Jehovah, from whom they had revolted? 
A. Yes. Paul, in the second chapter of Hebrews, quotes the 8th Psalm, which we have 
adduced as proof of the original dominion of the first Adam, and applies it to Christ 
the second Adam-the Lord from Heaven thereby teaching, that the crown of dominion 
which fell from the head of rebel Adam, has been placed upon the brow of Jesus, 
constituting him "king of the whole earth. " "But now we see not yet all things put under 
him, but we See Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of 
death, crowned with glory and honour. " 

Q. Do not "the four living creatures," the apocalyptic symbols of the faithful ministry, 
and the "four and twenty elders," symbols of the united congregations of the Old and 
New Testament saints, acknowledge Christ's dominion over the nations? 
A. Yes. They celebrate his praise with joy. Rev. v. 8, . "And when he (Christ) had taken 
the book, the four living creatures, and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb- 
and they sang a new Song, Saying, thou art worthy to take the book and open the seals 
thereof. " 

Q. Do not the innumerable company of angels surrounding the throne of the Lamb, 

concur with the ministry and church in these praises of the Lamb as governor among the 

nations I 

A. Yes. They celebrate his exaltation to the throne of the kingdom of Providence, and the 

government of the nations, with notes of the highest praise. Rev. v. 1 1. "And I beheld, 

and I heard the voice of many angels round 

I about the throne-and their number was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands 

of thousands, saying, with a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive 

power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. " 

Q. Does not the united acclamation of all other creatures testify their acknowledgment of 
his exaltation to the dignity of king of kings, and ruler of the heavens and the earth? 
A. Yes. They honour with rapture in the Song of the Angels and of the Redeemed. Rev. 
v. 13. "And every creature which is in Heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and 
such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, blessing and honour, and 
glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO THE LAMB 
FOREVER AND EVER." 



Q, Is not this doctrine of the moral supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ, as mediator, the 
great matter of controversy with the nations; the prominent principle of the Apocalypse; 
and peculiar to the Reformed Presbyterian Church? 

A. Yes. The whole book of the Revelation relates to Christ, as mediator; and his headship 
over the nations is its most prominent truth. In the preface to the splendid visions of the 
book, Christ proclaims himself "PRINCE OF THE KINGS OF THE EARTH" and in the 
last conflict with the nations his enemies, amidst the fury of the final battle, he exhibits 
conspicuously "on his vesture and on his thigh," the splendid title "KING OF KINGS, 
AND LORD OF LORDS;" intimating clearly, that the defence of his claims, as ruler of 
the nations is the great object of his warfare, and its acknowledgment the result of the 
victory which he obtains over his adversaries ; and is, consequently, the last article in the 
testimony of the WITNESSES, and peculiar to them, and remaining to be sealed by their 
precious blood. Rev. xvii. "The LAMB SHALL OVERCOME THEM (the kingdoms of 
this world), FOR HE IS LORD OF LORDS P AND KING OF KINGS-AND THEY 
THAT ARE WITH HIM ARE CALLED, AND CHOSEN, AND FAITHFUL. 

SECTION VI. 



On the Subjection of the Nations to God and to Christ. 

Q. Does not the mediatorial dominion of Jesus Christ over the nations, exclude Jehovah 
from the throne? 

A. By no means. 1. The economical relation illustrated in the first section, clearly shows 
that Christ reigns by the mutual consent of the persons of the Godhead, being designated 
to the office by an act of the divine will, and constituted Lord of all by the appointment of 
the Father; and, consequently, the Father rules by him, as his delegate. 2. The mediatory 
person and the second person of the Trinity, is but one and the same person, and Jehovah 
reigns in the person of the Son. 3. The objection proves too much ; for it may as well be 
argued that a work ascribed to the Son necessarily excludes the agency of the Father and 
the Holy Spirit; and consequently, that the first and third persons had nothing to do with 
creation (which is ascribed to the Son), as affirm that the ascription of an act to the 
Messiah excludes the agency of Jehovah. 4. Christ himself, in order to anticipate every 
objection of this kind, taught, while on earth, that his agency did not exclude the 
constancy of his Father's working; nor did the Father's agency, about the very same 
object, imply the Son's idleness. Jno. v. 17, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work. 

Q. Upon the principle of the economical arrangement or covenant between the persons in 
the Godhead is the acknowledgment of the mediatorial authority of the Son substantially 
and acknowledgement of that of the other persons in the Trinity, and so of the dominion 
of Jehovah ? 

A. Yes; this is manifest, 1 . Upon the principle laid down by the inspired Apostle, 1 Jno3 
ii. 23, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; [but] he that 
acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." If he that acknowledgeth that "Jesus is the 
Christ," acknowledgeth the Father: equally so, he that acknowledges the mediatorial 
dominion of the Son, acknowledgeth therein the dominion of Jehovah. 2. The subjection 



of Israel to the government of God, was to him in the mediatorial person and character; 
for the relation in which he stood to them was a gracious covenant relation-a relation 
which God absolutely considered cannot sustain to any of the guilty race of Adam, either 
individually or nationally. "Hear, Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord." 

Q. Is it the duty of nations to render national subjection to Jehovah, by their national 
recognition of Christ's mediatorial dominion over them, as "Prince of the kings of the 
earth?" 
A. Yes. 

Q. Which is the first proof of this? 

A. The example of the commonwealth of Israel. As it has just been stated, it was the true 
God in the person of the Messiah, whom they acknowledged, as is plain- 1. From his 
frequent appearances in human form to the patriarchs, Abraham, etc, the progenitors of 
the nation in covenant with him. 2. Christ was the angel sent before them to guide them 
from the bondage' of Egypt, as the uncreated "angel of the covenant" who had the power 
to "pardon transgression," and "in whom" was the name "Jehovah." Exod. xxiii. 20. 3. 
From the vision which the elders enjoyed upon Mount Sinai, Exod. xxiv. 10, "And they 
saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire- 
stone, as it were the body of heaven in his brightness;" evidently a vision of the Mediator. 
4. In the appearance of an armed warrior he led them to victory over the Canaanites. 
Joshua v. 13. 5. It was by covenant they submitted to him at Sinai, "All that the Lord hath 
said will we do," which is not made with God in his essential character. 6. It was Christ 
whom they tempted in the wilderness. 1 . Cor. x. 9, "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some 
of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." 7. Now, as the Israelites had a 
civil government, a national territory and property, and civil relations and rights, all these 
were completely subjected to the government of the Son of God, in his character of 
Mediator. 

Q. Is there any intimation in the whole volume of inspiration, that other nations should 
not copy after the example set them in Judea; or that the honours claimed by the Messiah 
and conceded to him, were peculiar to that territory, and that he doth not demand them in 
other quarters of the world ? 

A. There is no such intimation in the Scriptures, but their uniform teachings in this matter 
enforce the example ; and all the passages already quoted in proof of his mediatorial 
dominion over the nations, imply the obligation of nations to acknowledge his authority 
by a formal national act of recognition. 

Q. Were not the Jews under a peculiar Theocracy, and so, not all example in this respect? 
A. We hold, with a modern writer, "that the Jews were, indeed, under a Theocracy ; but 
so also are all baptized nations. They are as truly taught of God, and as firmly bound to 
serve him, as the Jews ever were. They have, at least, as great advantages for knowing, 
his will, and for doing it, as the Jews ever had ; and it is difficult even to imagine how 
Christianity could ever relax the obedience of nations, or remove farther away from them 
the eye and the hand of Providence, which so intimately superintended the affairs of the 
Jews. "Is he the God of the Jews only, anti not of the Gentiles? Yea, of the Gentiles also," 



who have a greater abundance of his oracles and law, than the Jews, before the coming of 
Christ, ever enjoyed." 

Q. But was there not something in the manner in which that government was managed, 
altogether unlike that which obtains in other nations ? 

A. The same author solves this query. "Besides, it must not be overlooked, that God's 
government of the Jewish nation was carried on by the usual and visible instrumentality 
of human government. All the orders of men were employed, as agents, in his 
government of the people, which have ever been employed in any civilized and well 
ordered state. There was among them a written statute-book of primary essential law. 
There were successions of supreme rulers. There were judges, priests, ministers of 
religion, prophets, teachers of the law, schools, places of worship' etc. God never was 
their king in the sense of appearing in person, sitting on a throne in the midst of them, and 
dispensing with the usual agents and instruments. So far was this from being the case, 
that all the while God was their king, the people had complete forms of government, in 
which they took part, and which they could and did change at their pleasure. At one time 
they were ruled by a military chief, as Joshua; at another, by judges ; at another, by a 
pontificate, as Samuel; again, by an elective monarchy, as under Saul ; And afterwards, 
by a hereditary monarchy from David down to the time of the captivity in Babylon &c. 
But whatever form the supreme magistracy assumed, the law by which it was to he 
guided was always the same." 

Q. Had not these rulers extraordinary helps of such sort, .and to such an extent, as to 
render the whole administration God's and not man's? 

A. "it may be objected, that the Jews had the Shechinah, the oracle, prophets, &c, to 
consult, which no other nation ever had, or can again expect. It is answered that Christian 
nations have the real Shechinah, the true Urim and Thummim-the whole Word of God or 
of Christ, speaking most clearly, whenever he is consulted' on every matter which it 
really concerns an individual or a nation to know. They have in one book, of easiest 
access, all the oracles, all the writings of their prophets; all the divine hymns, and all the 
wisdom of God, which the Jews ever had. They have them as near at hand, spoken in as 
plain a language, accompanied with as much solemn and impressive grandeur, verified by 
as many instances of performance, and assigning as clearly the reasons for the 
providential acts of the same God. In fine, what did the Jews of old know of God and of 
his government, that we, under the full light of the gospel, have not the means o/knowing 
greatly better than they they? 

Q. Can you give any direct proof from Scripture of the duty of nations to submit to the 
Lord Jesus Christ as their king ? 

A. Yes, abundant. I adduce the first proof Dan. vii. 13,14, " And there was given him (the 
Son of man) dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages 
should serve him." What stronger proof can be demanded of national subjection to 
Christ? All nations are his subjects, and if the subject is bound to submit to his lawful 
king, all nations are bound to acknowledge Christ as their king, and to "serve " and obey 
him). They must recognise his authority and engage themselves in his service. 



Q. Is there any command issued to the constituted authorities of the nations to render this 
homage ? 

A. Yes. Ps. ii. 10-12, "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the 
earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Sun lest he be angry, 
and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that 
put their trust in him." 1. The kiss here demanded is expressive of civil homage. I Sam. x. 
1, "And Samuel kissed Saul and said, Is it not because the Lord has anointed thee to be 
Captain over his inheritance? " 2. It is addressed to the constituted authorities of the 
nations-kings and judges-the whole national organization. 3. It is plain, therefore, that 
from the king, or chief ruler, down through all the departments of state, together with the 
whole national assemblage, there is to be an acknowledgment of the Son of God upon his 
mediatorial throne. He is to be kissed in token of subjection, and served as the Lord of all. 

Q. Is there any promise that this homage shall be rendered the Lord Jesus Christ ? 
A. Yes; There is a direct promise to this effect. Ps. lxxii. 8-11, " He shall have dominion 
from sea to sea-yea, all kings shall bow down before hint, all nations shall serve 
him." None worthy of respect will dispute the application of this Psalm to Christ. 
Although David refers to Solomon in this Psalm, yet he has in view a greater than 
Solomon. When David intended to build a house unto the Lord, and was forbidden, God 
promised that a Son should be born to him who should build the house, and gave him the 
promise, I Chr. xxii. 10, "I will be his father," which Paul applies to Christ, Heb. i. 6. 
With such authority we are in no danger of misinterpretation, in applying the text to the 
subjection of kings and of all nations to the dominion of Messiah, and the duty nationally 
to acknowledge his authority over them. ALL KINGS SHALL DOW DOWN BEFORE 
HIM, ALL NATIONS SHALL SERVE HIM. 

Q. Are not the nations threatened with destruction if they do not render this national 
homage ? 

A. Yes. Ps, ix. 17, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget 
God." Men are contemplated in this passage individually, and in their associated 
capacity, as moral persons compacted by civil bonds, or organized national bodies; God 
is to be remembered by man both in his individual and national capacity. To remember 
God is plainly to recognise his being and authority, and to be obedient to his will. To 
forget God is not to recognise his being and authority, and to refuse obedience to his will. 
Every wicked individual that does so shall be literally turned into hell. Every nation that 
does so shall meet the like most terrible retribution-shall be cut off from the living and 
covered in the grave. 

Q. Is not Ps. ii. 12, "Kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his 
wrath is kindled but a little," another fearful threatening? 

A. Yes. This passage, we have seen, is addressed to kings and judges, as they wear their 
crowns, and are invested with the ermine. If they refuse the kiss of civil homage (as it. 
means) they provoke the wrath of the Lamb, and perish under his iron rod. Hence the 
Roman Emperors and chief officers of state are represented as calling in terror to the 
rocks and mountains, "fall on us and hide us from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great 
day of his wrath is come." Rev. vi. 16. 



Q. Can you produce any other threatening? 

A. Yes. It is also declared in the 110th Psalm, "The Lord at the right hand shall strike 
through kings in the day of his Wrath." They "withstand" him, they resist his authority, 
they refuse submission, therefore "he fills the places wiih dead bodies, and wounds the 
head over many countries." 

Q. Is there a passage which strengthens this argument? 

A. Yes. This argument is greatly strengthened by a portion of the 76th Psalm, v. 11, 12, 
"Vow and pray unto the Lord your God: let all that be round about him bring presents 
unto him that ought to be feared he shall cut off the spirit of princes: e is terrible to the 
kings of the earth" According to Henry, vowing, here, respects taking an oath of 
allegiance to the King of kings. Bind your souls with a vow to him, as subjects to their 
sovereign, he will be feared by those who think it their sole prerogative to be feared. He 
shall cut off the spirit of princes; he shall slip it off as easily as we slip off a flower from 
the stock or a bunch of grapes from the vine, for he is terrible to to the kings of the earth, 
and sooner or later, if they be not so wise as to submit themselves to him, he will force 
them to call in vain to the rocks and mountains, "Full on us and hide us from the wrath of 
the Lamb." 

Q. Is not Christ's sentence for the rejection of his authority awful? 

A. Yes. Let nations tremble at the terrible sentence of Jesus Christ. Luke xix. 27, "But 
those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay 
them before me." 

Q. Does not the apocalyptic declaration - Rev. xi. 15, "The kingdoms of this world are 
become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ,"-import this natural subjection to 
Christ? 

A. Yes. It teaches that existing kingdoms, so far from being God's ordinances, are merely 
worldly kingdoms. They have their origin and all their regulations from men, corrupt 
men either rulers or mass of the people, as they are influenced by the devil, the god of 
this world. They are not such governments as meet the approbation of the Lord and his 
Christ, whose kingdom we have seen is not of this world, has not its origin from man, but 
from heaven. But throwing off their allegiance to the devil, and subjecting themselves to 
Christ, and taking the law at his mouth, and ruling for his glory and the good of the 
church, and felicity of man, they cast off their worldly character, and are clothed 
with the beauty and glory of the kingdom of heaven. Now they are the devil's kingdoms, 
and "at war with the Lamb," but by a national acknowledgment of the mediatorial 
authority of Christ, they become happily transformed into his millennial kingdoms. 

Q. Is not the duty of national subjection to Messiah as king taught in Dan. vii. 18 and 27, 
"The Saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever- 
and the kingdom and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, 
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High?" 

A. Yes, very distinctly. 1 . They imply that a great revolution takes the in the kingdoms of 
the world, (such as described in the preceding answer) in the subversion of those beastly 



powers exhibited in this chapter, upon which all dominions, all national associations, by a 
voluntary subjection, serve and obey him. What shall in future be, with divine 
approbation, ought now to be-all nations should Now serve and obey the Mediatorial 
King 

Q. Is not Rev. xxi. 24-26- "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the 
light of it; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it-and they shall 
all bring the glory and honour of the nations into it."- a further proof of the duty of 
national subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ, as prince of the kings of the earth? 
A. Yes. "This passage must be understood as describing a course of preparation that 
takes place on earth, as it is only in this world that national and official distinctions exist. 
Now, if nations, as such, are to walk in the light of the New Jerusalem; that is to say, are 
to derive distinguished honour and privileges from the church of Christ, they must fairly 
be regarded as under the dominion of the church 's head! And, if kings, as such, are to 
bring their glory into it; that is to say, are to subordinate their authority, power, revenues, 
and whole administration to the interests of Christ's kingdom, we are not only taught that 
the kings themselves are under the dominion of the Messiah-but in this account of their 
duty land privilege; we have a beautiful illustration of national subjection to his 
authority." 

Q. Do not the titles given to Christ demonstrate the duty of national subjection to the 
authority of the Messiah? 

A. They amount to a perfect demonstration. The titles, for example "king of kings "- 
"prince of the kings of the earth "- "Governor among the nations, " &c, show clearly that 
kings and nations are the subjects of Christ; and, as subjects owe subjection to the lawful 
authority over them; so, in like manner- nations owe national subjection to the Lord Jesus 
Christ-who, by the act of the Father, is constituted their Mediatorial King. The titles are 
significant of his authority over the nations, and of their reciprocal allegiance to him as 
their lawful governor. 

Q. Does not this claim of Christ-the national acknowledgment of his authority-enter as a 
chief principle among the causes of the present conflict between the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and the nations? 

A. Yes. The Lord Jesus Christ proclaims His authority as governor of the nations, and the 
duty of submission to himself on their part; his witnesses testify to the truth, and urge a 
national acknowledgment of his authority as King of kings. The nations refuse, saying, 
"We will not have this man to reign over us," they revolt more and more, goaded on in 
their mad career by the Dragon, and his subordinates, until the day of vengeance cometh, 
when the wrath of the Lamb being kindled, burneth like an oven, consuming the 
rebellious hosts. Is. xlv. 23. "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth 
in righteousness and shall not return; that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue 
shall swear." Applied to Christ, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, and Phil. ii. 9-11; Zeph. iii. 8, 9. 
"Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey ; for 
my determination is to gather the nations that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon 
them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured by the 
fire of my jealousy-for then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may call 



upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent." 

Q. Is not this claim of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the homage of the nations in their national 
character, a reasonable claim? 

A. It is a most reasonable claim-for it seems it self-evident principle, that, as civil 
government is the ordinance of God, his authority should be recognised. That, as the 
Lamb is the king of kings, and has the power of civil rule delegated to him, that he should 
be acknowledged in the exercise of his delegated authority as the vicegerent of Jehovah. 

Q. Does not the great majority of professed Christians revolt against this claim of the 
Messiah-as urged upon them as a peculiar principle of the Reformed Presbyterian 
Church-and the grand doctrine of their testimony? 

A. Yes. They cherish a squeamish sentimentality in relation to civil matters. They 
shudder, with the infidel, at the thought of religion having any thing to do with politics - 
that the name of Christ should, in any view, be associated with the kingdoms of this 
world. Yet, they will plead his imagined sanction for their own connexion with these 
kingdoms, and the support which they give to their immoralities and grinding oppression. 
The very ministers, who shrink with a superstitious sensitiveness from the writings of 
those noble witnesses, who have weighed immoral governments in the balances of the 
sanctuary, and have pronounced them wanting - will be found at the polls voting for the 
elevation of the "man stealer!" But, to plead the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as king 
of kings and to urge the application of his law to civil society-they absolutely refuse 
whilst they strenuously defend existing civil establishments, and, in so doing, betray the 
cause of their Lord and Master. 



SECTION VII. 

On the Word, or Revealed will of God, the Supreme Law in the State 

Q. Upon the supposition that God had a right, from all eternity, to resolve upon creating a 
world (which cannot be doubted), had he not an equal right to impose such laws upon it 
as his own glory and its welfare required? 

A. Yes. The creator has a natural inalienable right to impose such laws upon the work of 
his hands as may in his wisdom seem good; and this proposition is so self-evident, that it 
requires no argument to prove it. 

Q. Are not mankind, through their ignorance, and the blindness of their minds, and the 
depravity of their hearts, greatly lost to the sense of the theory of moral duty, and the 
source of rational obedience? 

A. Yes. Especially in the reasonings of self-styled philosophers upon the institution of 
civil government, they seem to forget that there is a God, who claims to be the Governor 
among the nations. 

Q. However confused the ideas of mankind may be upon this subject, in point of 
application to the important interests of morality, does it not appear among their most 



common notions, that there both is, and ought to be such a thing as Law? 

A. Yes. We know of no nations, however savage, that subsist in society, without some 

sort of laws or regulations by which their mutual intercourse is limited and directed. 

Q. Is not the idea of law most likely to be found in the original constitution of rational 
nature? And is it not here we ought to fix as its most probable locality, the first principle 
of that social intercourse which so generally draws the different tribes of the human race 
into their distinct national associations, which we see spread over the whole earth? 
A. Yes. The sense of law, or right and wrong, seems to have been impressed upon the 
original constitution man's moral nature; otherwise we could not easily conceive how 
beings of such a texture, and possessing such a versatility of character, as we find obtains 
in our own common family, could be brought so easily and universally to deliver 
themselves up to the restraints of civil authority, without some such principle implanted 
originally in their hearts. 

Q. Do not all laws and regulations among men require some rule by which they ought to 
be moulded? 

A. Yes. All the laws that ever were, or will be made, are mere "ropes of sand," unless 
they possess a certain portion of His authority, who is our Lawgiver and King ; and 
until men resort to this way of making laws, these fabrics of human order will not long 
brave the mouldering teeth of time. 

Q. Had a little more attention been paid to this principle, would the history of ancient and 
modern times have worn such a face of blood as it does at this day? 
A. No. We should not have seen the miserable race of man outraged without end and 
without measure, mingling their tears with the dust, under the iron heel of civil oppres- 
sors, while there is few or none to comfort the oppressed. 

Q. Is it not highly probable God has given up, in just judgment, this earth, to groan under 
the complicated miseries arising from tyranny find oppression, bloodshed and famine, on 
account of the contempt shown to his legislative character ? 

A. There can be little doubt of the truth of this statement: nor can we have tiny reason to 
believe that the disease will be removed until its causes cease. 

Q. What will be the consequences to the nations of the earth of the practical restoration of 
this right to God, as the Supreme Lawgiver? 

A. It will serve as an immovable mound to keep off the encroachments which pride, 
ambition, and avarice have almost generally made upon all the securities of civil liberty, 
which, in the depth of their wisdom, nations have been able to contrive; an infallible 
guardian to the rights of man is in vain sought for in the wise maxims of philosophers and 
patriotic statesmen; in vain do nations attempt to purchase liberty with the best blood of 
their citizens, while they deliver it. into the keeping of men unacquainted with, or 
regardless Of the supreme legislative authority of God, under which his friends may sit 
securely and none to make them afraid. 

Q. Although the remembrance of God's legislative authority may for it time become 



feeble, can it entirely be obliterated from the heart of man ? 

A. Infidelity and impiety are often forced to relinquish their strongholds, and openly 
confess that the darkened prisons of human wretchedness never can expect to be visited 
with a general jubilee, unless God condescends to avenge the quarrel of humanity, and let 
the prisoners shake off their chains; sceptical philosophers, who have been obliged to 
invent an atheistical language to serve the interests of their pride and vanity, have, 
undesignedly, been obliged to recognise God's legislative character. 

Q. Can you give an illustration? 

A. Yes. Philosophers, even of the infidel school, are obliged to introduce the notion of 
laws for the government of the physical world-as they account for the phenomena in the 
visible kingdom of creation by the name of laws of nature. 

Q. What is the import of the term nature in such a connexion ? 

A. It can mean nothing more than that order of causes and effects, which the only wise 

God at first established, and which he continually upholds. 

Q. What are the laws of nature, so termed in reference to the physical world? 
A. They are nothing else than the will of God, taking continued effect upon the different 
parts of his extended empire: and whether they are called by specific names, such as 
attraction, gravitation, &c, they are but the effects of the divine will governing the 
movements of the material creation which his hand hath formed. Hence when infidel 
philosophers speak of the laws of nature, they are constrained to recognise the will of the 
Supreme, upon the principle of Blackstone, that "law is a rule of action dictated by some 
superior being;" the laws of nature being but the rules of action impressed by the Creator 
upon the material creation. 

Q. Now, if these philosophers are obliged to introduce laws for the government of the 
physical world, is not this aid much more needed for the regulation of the moral system? 
A. Yes. So much the more as the moral transcends in excellency the physical world. 

Q. Does not the law of nature, therefore, assume a somewhat different aspect as applied 
to rational man ? 

A. Yes. It is not merely a rule impressed upon a material subject to regulate its 
movements, but a system of moral precepts given for the regulation of the conduct of a 
dependent rational agent. 

Q. Had not God a right As a spirit infinite, &c, to display or give scope to the exercise of 
his perfections, in such a manner as he saw to be conducive to his own glory ? 
A. The right is indisputable. To deny man a similar right is judged to be insupportable 
tyranny ; it cannot, therefore, be denied to God. 

Q. has God chosen to exercise this right ? 

A. Yes. Events have made it evident that he saw it every way worthy of his divine 

majesty, to command a multitude of creatures into existence. 



Q. His right to do so being admitted, as it must, does not his legislative authority follow 
of course ? 

A. So necessarily are these things connected, we cannot conceive the existence of 
creation a moment without the continual operation of a system of laws, suitable to 
regulate, each of its component parts, and guide all their motions into one central point. 

Q. Is not the existence of these Wise regulations, rendering this world a comfortable 
habitation for all its inhabitants, apparent everywhere we turn our eyes ? 
A. Yes. he that would not believe the testimony of day and night, summer and winter, 
seed time and harvest, would not believe though one rose from the dead. 

Q. Is not the denial of God's right of legislating for his creatures, to assert-that he never 
had a right to act at all ? 

A. Yes. For if once his right to create be granted, it will evidently follow that he behoved 
to govern the creatures made, conformable to some end, or else declare by him care- 
lessness about them, that he made them in sport, and its a trial of his skill, and for no 
good, wise, or holy purpose. To assert this would be the most horrid blasphemy. 

Q. Has not God given Abundant testimony of his own moral nature and rectoral 
character, in the constitution of man's rational nature? 

A. Yes. This is clear from the moral perceptive capacities with which man is endowed ; 
for its well may we believe that the ey6 in animal nature, and the light in the heavens, 
have met and held sweet society together for thousands of years, by chance, As believe a 
moral capacity in man without moral objects, with which it is designed to converse. 

Q. Is not this moral capacity, a distinguishing property of man's nature? 
A. Yes. It is a property which distinguishes him from all the inferior ranks of being, and 
he is hereby enabled clearly to discover his relation to the Supreme Being, and that the 
Lord hath required of him, that he should do justice, love, mercy, and walk humbly with 
his God. 

Q. Is this power in men a subject of government ? 

1 1, It is: Because, 1. Like all other powers of a derived nature, it must be governed-unless 
we adopt the absurdity, that it neither needs, deserves, nor admits of such a rule. 2. The 
more of spiritual and intellectual essence, any creature possesses, it is the more 
susceptible of government; and, accordingly, as dependent beings rise in the scale of 
excellency, legislative authority takes the firmer hold of their natures and operations. No 
man, in his reason, will say that moral nature, capable of such extensive employment 
among God's works, needs not a government sufficient to confine it within proper 
boundaries. 3. The abuse of moral power has kindled the fires of hell, and still keeps 
them burning. 4. Its proper application has embellished heaven with its most transparent 
lamps. 5. In proportion as morality prevails on earth, it blossoms like the rose, and sends 
forth a scent like Lebanon. In proportion as it withers, this earth becomes desolate and 
bare, and puts on the attire of a mourner -such a power certainly demands government. 6. 
When it is considered, that a moral capacity in human nature forms one of its principal 
ornaments, and is that wherein it makes the nearest approach to God, and on which he has 



expended much cost and pains since the world began, we cannot think it unreasonable 
that it should be a primary object of Divine legislative authority. 

Q. May God's legislative character be argued from his ends in creation ? 
A. Most certainly. Whatever could move God to create, must move him to govern. It is 
manifest that creatures cannot exist a moment independently of their Creator, and conse- 
quently cannot move on to their point of final destination without constant direction. It 
must, therefore, follow, 1. That either God had no end in view in forming the beautiful 
fabric of nature; or, 2. That he has dropped the end if he ever had one; or, 3. That he has 
missed the end, and given over any farther prosecution of it; or, finally, that he had an 
end, that he has signified the same to his dependents, and will most certainly 
see to its accomplishment. It will be no difficulty with any pious mind, which of these 
suppositions ought to be adopted. 

Q. Does a consideration of the existence of civil society and practice of civil government 
among men, greatly strengthen the argument in favour of God's legislative character? 
A. Very much, indeed. For, 1 . Experience shows, that the relation of civil society cannot 
exist to any advantage, unless under the protecting shade of morality. 2. An immoral 
society is a monster in nature; nor can anyone, completely such, ever exist, even among 
the most barbarous nations on earth. 3. If murder, perjury, theft, and adultery, were 
legitimated, society must speedily be dissolved. 4. Therefore all nations have found it 
necessary to encircle themselves with criminal codes of laws, by which the lives, 
property, and virtue of the community are preserved from destruction. 5. God, in his 
providence, has so ordered it, that in proportion as the moral law has been incorporated 
into the civil compact of any collective society, that society enjoys happiness on earth, 
and progresses towards that which is better beyond it. 6. It is not to be concealed, that our 
vicious nature often thinks otherwise, and acts upon principles agreeable to its corrupt 
desires; but as certainly it follows, that such departures from the law of our natures, draw 
after them national ruin, as has been verified in the history of all ages. The uniformity of 
similar effects following similar causes, clearly evidences this to be the constitution of 
heaven. 7. Those, therefore, who think or imagine they can perfect constitutions by 
abridging the moral law's operation in civil society, are mistaken in one of those points 
wherein it is of the highest moment to be rightly informed. 8. And if we admit moral 
considerations at all to have a place in forming the bonds of human society, no doubt 
then, the more influence, which are communicated thence, the-social compact will be so 
much the stronger!. So that it does appear, from the impossibility of binding the human 
race together by any cords but those of a moral nature, that God must have exercised his 
legislative right, in preparing that code by which our family may harmonize in the bonds 
of love, while sun and moon endure. 

Q. Does not the conscience of man confirm this view of God's legislative authority? 
A. Very forcibly. 1 . Whence arises the sense of blame with which men are so severely 
lashed, notwithstanding all their pains to shield themselves therefrom, or cure the wounds 
when received ? The instances of remorse on record, put it beyond a doubt that the heart 
of man, by its constitution, is rendered susceptible of such impressions. 2. And however 
speculative and immortal men may, in their closets and upon paper, have attempted to 



reason themselves amid others into a belief, that there is no distinction between right and 
wrong, yet we see they have made no great progress in bringing their proselytes to act up 
uniformly to such a principle: for who, in his senses, has ever been known to commend 
the murderer of a beloved father or child? Who ever beheld with delight a beloved wife 
or daughter defiled before his eyes? 3. It seems, therefore, that however men may he 
carried away by their imaginations into Utopian fields, when they descend and mingle in 
real life they cease not to feel as other men do, at least in cases interesting to themselves, 
and to act on, the same principles. 

Q. Does not Revelation confirm this reasoning upon legislative authority? 
A. Yes, its evidence is decisive. For, 1 . What is the whole Old Testament but a history of 
the giving of laws, the breaches made upon them, and the consequent punishment? or else 
of due obedience yielded thereunto, with the rewards annexed? And 2. The New 
completes the Old by adding those sections which more immediately respect the methods 
by which God's law has been honoured, and its credit preserved, together with the 
functions which it continues to perform on the hearts of all who are redeemed from under 
its curse, as also what its office will be to eternity in and over those who remain destitute 
of a covering from its awful demands. 

Q. God has not, therefore, created man independent of his authority, and sent him forth 
among his works exempted from the dominion of law? 

A. By no means. The above induction brings us necesarily to the conclusion, that man is a 
dependent creature, he is dependent upon his Creator, and in the language of Blackstone, 
"consequently as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary 
that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will." 

Q. What is this will of his Maker called? 

A. It is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endowed it with 
a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of its motions, 
so when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of 
lift-, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature. 

Q. Is this law of human nature of superior obligation? 

A. This law of nature, says the same civilian, " being coeval with mankind, and dictated 
by God himself, is of superior obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in 
all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and 
such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or 
immediately from this original. 

Q. Was this law tire basis of God's covenant with Adam ? 

A. It was, and was the rule of Adam's behaviour towards God, and of his dominion - 

which he exercised over this world before his apostasy. 

Q. Has this law been abrogated by the apostasy of Adam? 

A. By no means. Man's apostasy did not annul God's regal dominion over the rebel 

creature, and the law inscribed upon man's nature in his creation, whilst it binds him 



under its penalty, still holds him under the dominion of God ; and by it he is under an 
indissoluble obligation to regulate his conduct in all the transactions of life. 

Q. Has not the satisfaction of the law, by the obedience unto the death of Jesus Christ, 
released man from its obligations? 

A. By no means, because believers themselves are said to be under the law as a rule of 
life. 1 Cor. ix. 21, "Being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ." 2. Christ 
did not "destroy," but "fulfilled" the law. 

Q. Is not civil magistracy, as the ordinance of Cod, founded in this law of nature I 
A. Yes. Magistracy was first instituted in the human family when God gave Adam 
dominion over Eve and all the works of his hand on earth, (Ps. viii. 6) of which this law 
was the rule; and still abides the supreme rule of civil magistracy among the posterity of 
Adam, through all ages of the world. Rom. i. 32, " Who knowing the judgment of God, 
that they which do such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have 
pleasure in them that do them." ii. 14, 15, " For the Gentiles which have not the law 
(written) do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law 
unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience 
also bearing witness, and their thoughts, the meanwhile, accusing, or else excusing, one 
another." 

Q. Can there indeed exist any lawful civil power that has not its fountain and its law in 

this will of the Supreme Lawgiver, the Creator of the heavens and the earth ? 

A. No. Civil government, we have seen, as is it legitimate, is the moral ordinance of God, 

and the Deity himself, alone, is the supreme source of civil power; and consequently the 

government which he will recognise must be founded in this immutable law of human 

nature. 

Q. Is it not a first principle of this law, that God's authority be recognised by the 
constituted civil society? 

A. Yes. The rejection of his authority and his law has been the source of the "judicial 
blindness" which God bas inflicted upon the nations. Rom. i. 28, "For even as they did 
not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do 
those things which are not convenient" 

Q. Is this law fully discoverable by the reason of man from the light of nature ? 
A. Some faint traces of this law remain upon the moral nature of man, (Rom. ii. 14, 15,) 
and are revealed in some degree of legibility by the light of nature, (Rom. i. 20-32 ; Ps. 
xix. \,) " so that men are without excuse ;" yet man's intellect has been so much 
impaired and corrupted by the fall that he is not able fully to discover what the law of 
nature directs in every circumstance of life, as every man finds in his own experience, 
that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding is full of ignorance and error. 

Q. Has this blindness of human reason given occasion to the benign interposition of the 

Creator in giving a perfect transcript of this law, in a written revelation of his will? 

A. Yes. God has been pleased at sundry times and divers manners to enforce his original 



law, by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the 
revealed or divine law. 

Q. Where are they to be found? 

A. They are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures; for until they were therein revealed 

they were hid from the wisdom of the ages. 

Q. Is this revealed law contained in the Holy Scriptures of the same obligation with the 
original law of nature? 

A. Undoubtedly; for as the moral precepts of this law are of the same origninal of this law 
of nature, and are found , upon comparison, to be really a part of the original law of 
nature, as they lead in all tliuir consequences to man's felicity, so their intrinsic 
obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. 

Q. Is not this revealed will of God in the Scriptures of truth of even infinitely higher 
authority than that moral system which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the 
natural law? 

A. Unquestionably. Because the one is the law of nature expressly declared so to be by 
God himself. The other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, men imagine to 
be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter, as we are of the former, both would 
have an equal authority; but till then they are never to be put in any competition together. 

Q. Do not all just human laws depend upon these two foundations-77ze Law of Nature and 
the Law of Revelation? 

A. Yes. No human laws should be suffered to contradict them: if they are contradictory to 
these they have no validity, not" binding obligation upon the conscience. 

Q. What is this revealed law usually called 
A. The Moral Law. 

Q. Wherein is this moral law summarily comprehended ? 

A. It is comprehended in a summary manner in the TEN COMMANDMENTS. 

Q. Is this moral law, thus summarily exhibited with all the revealed precepts based 
thereon, placed in the hands of Jesus Christ the mediatorial King, to be administered by 
him in the government of the nations? 

A. Yes. The law is in the hands of the mediator, and under him the human family, in its 
national as well as other relations, is commanded to be subject to the law of God. 1 Cor. 
ix. 21, "Not without law to God, but under the law to Christ. " 

Q. Does the Lord Jesus Christ, as the "Governor of the Nations," demand that their 
constitution and laws be founded upon his laws, revealed in the Scriptures of truth ? 
A. Yes. As the King of kings he bath in the Scriptures of truth promulgated his law, and 
demands that all people, nations, and languages should serve him, by admitting to his 
sceptre and "taking the law at his mouth." 



Q. Does it appear from the fact already established - the endowment of the Mediator with 
regal authority aver the nations-that it is the design of God to reduce the human race 
under him to a condition of obedience and holiness, even upon the earth, nearly 
resembling that which it would have enjoyed had Adam not revolted? 
A.. Yes. The MILLENIUM will exemplify this happy state; and in order to reduce the 
race to this blessed condition, the constitution and laws of civil governments must be 
based upon the revealed law of Christ. 

Q. Wherein is it evident that Christ claims this national recognition of, and subjection to, 
his law, revealed in the Scriptures? 

A. It is evident, 1 . In the fact that men, in their social relations, are under the same law 
that they are under in their individual capacity. 

Q. What is the second evidence? 

A. The law under which each individual is placed is "the law" (1 Cor. ix. 21)-evidently 

the moral law revealed in the Scriptures. 

Q. What is the third evidence ? 

A. As this law was the rule, as proved, of civil government, as lodged in the hands of the 

first Adam, it remains the supreme rule in that relation still under the second Adam. 

Q. What is the fourth evidence ? 

A. The language of its curse contains this doctrine: "Cursed is every one that continueth 
not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." To this the people collectively 
were to say, Amen. 

Q. What is the fifth argument? 

A. The commission given to the New Testament Ministry embodies this doctrine, Matt, 
xxviii. 19, 20, "Go ye therefore will teach all nations, to observe all things whatsoever 
/ have commanded you ". 

Q. What is the sixth evidence? 

A. The character of civil government and its administration, described in the 13th of 
Romans, as the ordinance of God, and the Minister of God to men for good, plainly 
enforces the doctrine of national subjection to the law of God, because his law is the only 
rule of moral good. 

Q. What is the seventh evidence? 

A. The example of the commonwealth of Israel demonstrates the doctrine, Exod. xxiv. 7, 

"And Moses took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of the people 

and they said, ALL THAT THE LORD HATH SAID WILL WE DO, AND BE 

OBEDIENT". Alsov. 3. 

Q. What is the eighth evidence ? 

A. The king, of Israel, in their regal capacity, were to have a copy of the law, and to study 

and apply it in the administration of the government. Deut. xvii. 18, 19, "And it shall be 



when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law 
in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with hin, and 
he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to 
keep all the words of his law, and the statutes to do them." v. 20. 

Q. What is the ninth proof ? 

A. Those kings who obeyed are commended. 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. In the case of Josiah, for 
"his goodness" according to what was written "in the law of the Lord." Whilst Rehoboam 
is blamed (2 Chr. xii. 1) because "he forsook the law of the Lord." 

Q. What is the tenth proof? 

A. To possess this holy and divine law was considered the greatest blessing to the nation. 

Ps. cxlvii. L9, 20, "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto 

Israel he hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments they have not known 

them." 

Q. What is the eleventh evidence? 

A. It was given to the people as a nation. Thus Joshua addressed the tribes, xxii. 5, "Take 

diligent heed to do the commandment and the law." 

Q. What is the twelfth proof? 

A. National judgments are threatened for its violation, Is: v. 24, 25. "Therefore as the fire 
devoureth the stubble and the flame constumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as 
rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of 
the Lord, and despised the word of the holy one of Israel." 

Q. What is the thirteenth evidence? 

A. The nation is reproved for its violation. Jer. ix. 13-15. "Because they have forsaken 
my law which I set before them; therefore, I will feed them even this people with 
wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink." 

Q. What is the fourteenth proof ? 

A. It is predicted that the nations in New Testament times shall be subject to this law. Is. 
xlii. "The isles shall wait for his law." Jer. iv. 17 ; Is. ii. 2, 3. "In the last days-many 
people shall go and say, come ye and let us go up to the mountains of the Lord, to the 
house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his 
paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." 

Q. Were these precepts, indeed, addressed not to individuals only, but to the nation as 

such? 

A. Yes. Each precept is in the singular number, thou. This form of expression is used, not 

merely to indicate that every individual who heard this law is bound to obedience, but 

also every Christian nation as a body politic or moral person is addressed by the lawgiver, 

and commanded to obey. 

Q. Where is the evidence of this ? 



A. The evidence is in the fact, that to the nation in its national capacity the decalogue is 
emphatically directed-/ am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, 
and out of the house of bondage. Whom did he bring out of Egypt? The nation, and to it 
he addressed the decalogue. 

Q. Were not the Jews, in their true national organization, as the ordinance of God, 
designed as an exemplar to all nations in subsequent times? 

A. Yes. They wore in civil things, "a shadow;' as it were, "of good things to come." What 
was transacted by them as a nation in covenant with God, is an example all nations by 
whom the record of their deeds shall be read; especially in their covenant subjection and 
obedience to the divine law. 

Q. Wherein lies the evidence of this? 

A. The evidence lies in the prediction in Psalm cii. 15-18, "So the heathen (nations) shall 
fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth thy glory. This shall be written 
for the generation to come; and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord." 
The Jewish nation " bowed the knee" to the God of Jacob, as his servants: and after their 
example, "so" the organized national bodies, and kings, or supreme civil rulers, 
officially, shall follow their example -shall fear and serve the name of the Lord-the 
Messiah-?/ze glory of the Lord; shall do him homage as the King of kings, the Father's 
glory or representative in the throne of the nations. 

Q. When shall this take place? 

A. It shall take place, according to the context, "When the Lord shall build up Zion"- 
bring in the Jews with the fulness of the Gentiles. The Israelitish commonwealth 
therefore, stands on the inspired page, an exemplar to all the nations of the world of a just 
national organization; which shall be, in all its moral elements, strictly copied when the 
prediction recorded in the Psalm shall be fulfilled! -v. 22. 'When the people are gathered 
together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord." So shall they fear the name of 'the Lord - 
by a national subjection to the law of the Lord, in the hands of the Mediator- "the prince 
of the kings of the earth." 

Q. Is not the decalogue divided into two tables ? 

1 1 : Yes. The first contains four precepts, and second six. The former teaches our duty to 

God-the latter our duty to man. 

Q. Do the precepts of the first table express the rights of God, which he demands shall be 
embodied in the civil constitutions of the nations, that their governments may be his 
ordinance ? 

A. Yes. They contain " the things of God," which all nations are bound nationally to 
"render" him. 

Q. Can you give a simple exhibition of these rights or claims of God by the Mediator 
upon the nations of the earth ? 

A. Yes. 1. The first requires as an inalienable right of the Godhead, that every nation as 
such, in its organic character, acknowledge the Lord to be its God. Exod. xx. 3. "Thou 



shalt have no other Gods before thee." xxxiv. 14. " For thou shalt worship no other God, 
for the Lord whose name is jealous, is a jealous God." Rom. iii. 29. Is he the God of the 
Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles ? Yea, of the Gentiles also? 2. "The second 
precept requires the nation to establish the true worship of God, and to put down, and 
prevent idolatry or f also worship. Exod. xx. 4. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any 
graven image, &c. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them," &c. Deut. 
vii. 5. "Thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their 
images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire." See an 
example, by the king Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 4-7. If idolatry and false worship is a moral 
evil-a violation of the law-then the ruler must suppress it. Rom. xiii. 4. See also, 1 Cor. x. 
19-21. 3. The third precept requires the nations to entertain an awful reverence of the 
holy name of Jehovah, and sincerely to respect everything whereby he maketh himself 
known. Ex. xx. 7. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain ; for the 
Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Deut. xxviii. 58, 59. "If 
thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou 
mayest fear this glorious and fearful name-THE LORD THY God-then the Lord will 
make thy plagues wonderful," &c. Mai. i. 1 1 . For from the rising of the sun, even unto 
the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the gentiles (or nations)-and 
in every place, incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name 
shall be great among the heathen (nations), saith the Lord of hosts, See Rom. xv. 4 ; Jam. 
v. 12; Zech. v. 3. 4. The fourth precept enforces the claims of God upon the nations to 
observe the Christian Sabbath: to consecrate it as a day of national rest and devotion. Ex. 
xx. 8. " Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," etc. See also Jer. xvii. 20-22; Ex. xvi. 
22, 23 ; Num. xv. 32, 33 ; Neh. xiii. 15 ; Mark ii. 27. Now, as God is as, jealous of his 
DEITY today as of old-as his worship is as sacred-his name as holy-and his sabbath as 
honourable-it is the duty still of all nations "from the rising of the sun to the setting of the 
same," to recognise these his rights, and embody them in their national constitutions, find 
defend and enforce them by their laws and administration. 

Q. Is not the church the only agent now for the application and enforcing of this table of 
the decalogue? 

A. No. The church is an agent in her sphere, but her influence extends over her members 
only-but civil government is ordained of God as a grand co-operative agent with the 
church in the application of the divine law to society, and its arm, in the spreading of 
moral influence, reaches far beyond her boundaries, into the dark places of the land. 
Besides, if the state is not "for the Lord," it will be "against him"-it cannot be indifferent, 
and may paralyse the arm of the church even in the legitimate sphere and manner of her 
action-as is exemplified abundantly, in our own land, in relation to all the rights of God. 

Q. Does not the second table of the decalogue specifically commemorate the rights 
common to all mankind, and guaranteed by God to all equally, and to be secured to them 
in the constitutions of civil government? 

A. Yes. The rights of men exist before the constitution of civil government- they exist in 
the divine law; and civil government confers none of them; but is ordained of God to 
secure and protect them as the boon of heaven, hence civil magistrates are the 
administrators also of the precepts of the second table of the decalogue. 



Q. Have you not already informed us that civil government is the ordinance of man? How 
does this agree with your statement of the duty of national subjection to the law of God? 
A. Whilst civil government is the ordinance of man in a certain view of it; it is, at the 
same time, the ordinance of God (as we have seen in it former section), in its grand 
fundmental moral principles, and these views are not inconsistent. Men are free as it 
respects one another, and have a right to erect government over themselves, and no man s 
a right to rule his fellows, without authority conveyed by the free suffrages of the 
majority. But no number of people have a right to establish it government upon any other 
foundation than the law of God. Civil government subordinately to the glory of God, is 
designed of God, for the highest good of the whole, and must be so organized as that no 
one will be deprived, unjustly, of his rights, which belong to him equally with the rest. 

Q. Is not the law of God the fountain and rule of human rights ? 

A. Yes. The rights of men are all derived from God, and the law of God defines them; 
and the substance of that law, as it is the rule of human rights, is condensed in the golden 
precept,- "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. " This 
places all men upon an equality, without respect of persons or complexions. If men 
observe this rule, they enjoy an infallible security against oppression and wrong. 

Q. Can you give a summary enumeration of the several rights which the second table of 
the decalogue, defines and guarantees to mankind ? 

A. Yes. Yes first precept of this table is designed to preserve subordination in society by 
regulating the mutual duties of superiors and inferiors. 1. It maintains parental authority, 
which is one of the main pillars of society; whilst it secures, on the other hand, the rights 
of the child, who is to be honoured as a rational and immortal being, and not the abject 
slave of a domestic tyrant. 2. It regulates the relation of master mid servant, secures 
obedience to the former, and the " rendering of that which is just and equal" to the latter. 
It does not elect the former into a lordly and irresponsible tyrant, with the scourge for his 
sceptre, and to reduce the latter into the grovelling condition of the brutalized slave. 
There is no such relation recognised by the law of God. The master is the head of the 
family, and the servant is as the son, subordinate to the head of the domestic 
establishment, amid the labourer is worthy of his hire. Jer. xxii. 13. "Woe unto him that 
buildeth his house by uurighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that uses his 
neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work." 3. It regulates the 
relation of husband and wife, minister and flock, and secures their reciprocal rights, as 
expounded elsewhere in the Scriptures. 4. Civil government, also, has its security under 
the aegis of this precept. It guarantees obedience to legitimate rulers administering the 
ordinance of God; and secures the rights of the subject, as those of the son. It presents the 
civil ruler as a benignant parent, and all the people surrounding him as his beloved 
children, whom he nourishes and cherishes as a father his son. 5. In one word, the second 
table guarantees to all equally the preservation of life, chastity, property, reputation, and 
is designed even to suppress the lustings of the depraved heart after that which is the 
possession of another. 6. It is true that civil government cannot reach the heart. It 
regulates the life. Yet it is ordained of God not only to punish overt acts in violation of 
any of the precepts, but to prevent crime by precautionary regulations, and a parental 



surveillance. As an illustration-it is the duty of civil government, for the preservation of 
chastity, secured by the 7th commandment to suppress the houses of temptation, and to 
protect society against the wiles and obscenity of "the strange women, whose house is the 
way to hell;" and on the other hand to protect woman from the lust of licentious and 
debased men, who prowl around the loveliest, that they may seize them as their prey. 7. 
Thus with regard to every other precept of the decalogue, civil government is its 
guardian, and is bound to apply it equally to all the subject-, of its sceptre, not only to 
punish the transgressor, but to enforce its observance by such regulations as will bring the 
precept to bear upon the minds and consciences and lives of all under its jurisdiction. 

Q. Is not civil government bound, as it is God's ordinance, to execute the penal statute, 
enacted its sanctions and enforcements of the precepts of the decalogue? 
A. This seems to be a necessary deduction from the principles established. Because, 1. 
Those particular judgements which were enacted for the defence and enforcement of the 
moral laws are, from the nature of the case, of perpetual obligation, for the penal sanction 
of a law is a part of the law itself. Take away the sanction, and the law is annulled. 2. 
They were the punishments decreed of God for crimes committed in violation of his own 
law, and he knows best what punishment is due to its transgression. 3. The moral law is 
of universal and perpetual obligation, its penal sanctions must carry with them a 
tantamount obligation. 4. They were enacted for the defence of the authority of the 
decalogue, which is ever to be defended-the defence should perpetually surround the law: 
5. The nature of crime is invariably the same, no lapse of time destroys its punishable 
character; hence, like crimes in every age deserve like punishment, as they attack the 
authority of God the Lawgiver, and subvert the good order, purity; and peace of society 
with equal malignancy. 6. The judicial judgment-, to which reference is had, were those 
which were appended to precepts of the first and second table ; were reducible to these; 
were, in fact, the application of these to civil society, by the same awful authority which 
promulgated the decalogue. He who said, "thou shalt not kill," said also, " The murderer 
shall certainly be put to death." He who said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," said also, 
"The adulterer and adulteress shall SURELY be put to death." He who said, "Thou shalt 
not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," said also, "He that blasphemeth the name 
of the Lord shall surely be put to death." 7. Paul i. Tim, i. 8-10, which see, powerfully 
enforces this argument. It is evidently the penal law to which the apostle refers, because 
elsewhere he affirms that believers - the same with the righteous - are under the law to 
Christ. The righteous man is not liable to the judgment of the penal law, but the 
transgressor of the moral law is exposed to its sanctions. The law, as it is preceptive, is a 
rule of life to the righteous, and he delights in it after the inner man. The penal law 
applies only to the wicked, "murderers," &c. The sanctions of the law, then, are of equal 
obligation with the law itself. 8. Other judicial enactments are recognised by Paul as yet 
binding in their principle as a moral rule. I Cor. ix. 0, 10, " For it is written in the law of 
Moses. Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God 
take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OUR SAKES, NO DOUBT, THIS IS 
WRITTEN. That he that plougheth should plough in hope ; and that he that thrasheth in 
hope, should be partaker of his hope." 

Q. Is it not at least strange, that men favoured with a pure copy of the divine law, in the 



volume of revelation, should reject this fountain of light, and go back to the indistinct 
"dictates of conscience " to regulate any part of human conduct? 

A. Yes. It is more than strange, it is extremely stupid and utterly inconsistent with 
Christianity ; especially when God declares that it is "To the law and to the testimony we 
must bring all actions and all relations. If they speak not according to these it is because 
there is no light in them." Is. viii. 20. The truth is, that revelation is given to men to 
supply the imperfections of the law of nature ; and to restrict ourselves to the latter, and 
to renounce the former, in any case in which it is competent to guide us, is at, once to 
condemn God's gift and to defeat the end for which it was given; and is as absurd as it 
would be to require men, when the sun is in the heavens, to shut out its full blaze, and go 
about their ordinary business by the feeble rays of a taper. 

Q. Must not those who adopt anti-government principles and reject civil government as 
an institution necessary and beneficial to mankind, when rightly constituted, become 
atheists, and reject not only the authority, but also the being of a God? 
A. This seems to be a necessary result of such principles because as man is a rational 
creature he is necessarily subject to his Creator, who has promulgated his law and insti- 
tuted civil magistracy as his ordinance, and the civil ruler as his minister, for the 
application of this in the government of the moral subject. 

Q. Is not the authority of God, therefore, and his law paramount to all other authority, 
even that of "We the people, " in the government of man in his civil relations? 
A. Yes. Man has no natural inherent rights of his own. All his are derived from God, are, 
of course, subject to his law, and are to be defined and regulated by it. A right in 
opposition to his own, God does not, cannot give; nor is it competent to any power to 
impart and sanction such a right. The sentiments of Blackstone should, therefore, be 
deemed axioms, and recorded in letters of gold in the halls of legislation. "Upon these 
two' foundations, THE LAW OF NATURE AND THE LAW OF REVELATION, 
DEPEND ALL HUMAN LAWS. THAT IS TO SAY, NO HUMAN LAWS SHOULD 
BE SUFFERED TO CONTRADICT THESE. 

Q. What, according to this law, are some of the qualifications of civil rulers authorized to 
administer civil government as the ordinance of God? 

A. The law of God, revealed in the scriptures of Truth, requires that those who rule 
should possess much a moral character as will fully entitle them to the designation of 
MINISTERS OF GOD. They should, therefore, possess the following qualifications: 
1. They should be Wise, able, understanding men, not children, weak, ignorant, or fools. 
Ex. xviii. 21: "Moreover, thou shalt provide of all the people able men." Deut. i. 13: 
"Take you wise and understanding men, and I will make them rulers." Ezra vii. 25: "Set 
magistrates and judges that may judge the people, such as know the laws of thy God. " 2. 
They should be men of distinction, well known in the community. Deut. i. 13-18: "And 
known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. So I took the chief of 
your tribes, wise men and known, and made them heads over you." 2 Chr. xix. 3. Just 
men, men of truth, fearing God and hating covetousness. 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3: "The spirit of 
the Lord spake by me, and his word was on my tongue. The Lord God of Israel said, the 



Rock of Israel spoke to me: HE THAT RULETH OVER MEN MUST BE FAST 
RULING IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD." Exod. xvm. 21: "Men of truth, fearing God, 
hating covetousness." Is there a government on earth that can be recognised by the 
Christian as the ordinance of God, and to which he can be obedient for conscience sake, 
and in consistency with his allegiance to Jesus Christ- the prince of the kings of the earth? 

A. There is not. Since the captivity of Judah, about 558 years before the Christian Era, 
until the present day, scarcely an instance has occurred in the whole history of nations, of 
a kingdom or commonwealth regulating their polity upon purely scriptural principles. 
Many nations, it is true, have pretended to be Christian; and religion has been scandalized 
by their unholy interference. Many Christians have also have deceived and misled into a 
belief, that the kingdoms of the nations were so constituted as to merit their conscientious 
acquiescence and pious support. But the prince of the kings, if time earth, who gave the 
revelation to his servant John, teaches us, that now (under the seventh trumpet, Rev. xi. 
15, yet future), for the first time, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of 
God and of Christ. Heretofore they have been thrones of iniquity, having no fellowship 
with God. (Psalm, xciv. 20), characterized as beasts and horns of beasts, both by Daniel 
and the writer of the Apocalypse. Servants and admirers and apologists and eulogists they 
have had in abundance; but there was not a voice in heaven raised in their commendation. 
They were to be feared but not approved by the servants of the Most High. 

Q. Will not the condition of the nations, when they become voluntarily subject to Christ 
and his law, be most prosperous and happy? 

A. Yes. The prosperity and felicity of Ancient Israel, when the law given that 
commonwealth was faithfully observed, will be the blessed inheritance of the nations 
when obedient to Christ. Deut. iv. 6-9 :" Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is your 
wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these 
statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what 
nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all 
things that we call upon him for ? And what nation is there so great that hath statutes and 
judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? Only take heed to 
thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have 
seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, 
and thy sons' sons." 

SECTION VIII. 



The Duty of Nations, in their National Capacity, to acknowledge and 

support the True Religion. 

Q. Is civil magistracy, as the ordinance of Cod, conversant only about the transient and 
paltry affairs of merely animal gratification ? 

A. Such a view, though common, is utterly incompatible with the origin and design of the 
institution, which has descended from the throne of God, for the express purpose of 
preserving moral order among men. 



Q. Is there any institution given to God to men, so happily adapted to preserve moral 

order among mankind as the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ ? 

A. There is none-for its very nature is to promote " peace on earth, and good will towards 

men." 

Q. Are the two great institutions-civil government and the Christian religion, or church 
and state, hostile to, and in their nature and action calculated to frustrate each other, in the 
benign influence which they may respectively exert upon the human race? 
A. No. They are friendly powers under the same moral regimen -the law of God, and 
designed in their respective spheres and by the means peculiar to each, to advance the 
same objects, the glory of God on earth, and the best interests of mankind. 

Q. Are they distinct powers ? 

A. Yes. They are distinct powers, and independent one of the other as will appear in its 

place, and each has its distinctive and particular sphere of action. 

Q. Is it not the custom of independent civil powers to form treaties of alliance, offensive 
and defensive, against a common enemy and for mutual benefit? 

A. Yes. It is a common practice, and generally, if the principles of the treaty are just, 
tends greatly to the pence, security, and mutual interests of the contracting parties. 

Q, have not church and state their common enemy ? 

A. Yes. Sin is their common enemy, presenting itself in the specific forms of ignorance, 

immorality, and irreligion. "Righteousness exalteth a nation, sin is a reproach to any 

People."' 

Q. May not church and state form, and is it not their duly to do so, such friendly alliance 
for the promotion of intelligence, morality, and religion, and the suppression of the 
baneful influence of their common enemy ? 

A. Certainly. As they have a common enemy, and (as stated) a common object, they 
ought to form such friendly alliance, that they may have a mutual understanding of their 
legitimate and distinctive spheres of action ; and co-operate, encourage, and mutually 
strengthen each other in the advancement of the common good. 

Q. Should the true church of Christ, "The bride, the Lamb's wife' form such all alliance 
with a heathen, antichristian or immoral state? 

A. By no means. The same law applies to the church collectively which applies to the 
individual members, not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers" even as God's ordi- 
nance of civil government in operation in Judea, was forbidden alliance with a heathen 
and idolatrous civil power. Isa. viii. 12, "Say ye not-A confederacy-to all them to whom 
this people may say-A confederacy." 2 Cor. vi. 15, "What concord hath Christ with 
Belial?" 

Q. May God's ordinance of civil government form an alliance with a corrupt, heathenish 

and anti-Christian? 

A. By no means: any more than a Christian man should ally himself in marriage with a 



polluted harlot, impenitent, and unreformed. 

Q. Has not the church in past ages received detriment and does she not in some nations at 
the present time sustain injury by being thus unequally yoked with immoral anti-Christian 
civil powers? 

A. Yes. She has been and is still greatly injured, and from the very nature of society, she 
must sillier in such connexion, until both learning and power are transferred into the 
hands of godly men, and so made Subservient to piety. Independently of the impressive 
lessons of long and painful experience upon this Subject, it is quite reasonable to expect 
that if unsanctified men incorporate revealed religion with civil government, such a form 
will certainly be given to religion as may suit unsanctified power. The daughter of Zion is 
much better without such an alliance, for it is the very essence of anti-christianism. The 
Bride, the Lamb's wife, Cannot he supposed to escape pollution, if taken into the em- 
braces of unholy men, and rendered dependent upon a government which they 
administer. It is safer for the friends of religion to continue like the witnesses 
prophesying in sackcloth, faithfully struggling in poverty against the frowns of power, 
than to become the stipendiaries of irreligious statesmen. 

Q. As you do not approve of every kind of union church and state, and as no existing 

union receives countenance, for what kind of union of these distinct independent powers 

do we plead? 

A. We plead only for a union between God's moral ordinance of civil government, duly 

constituted as his minister to men for good, with pure Christianity, or the Bride, Lamb's 

wife. 

Q. As both of those institutions, church and state, from God, is it not a just inference, that 
they are designed by Him to dwell together in harmonious union, and co-operation, for 
the promotion of the good of mankind-like " two olive trees"-that through "the golden 
pipes"; pour their oil into the common bowl? 

A. It cannot be justly questioned. Because, if not allied as they exist in the same 
community, they must frequently come into conflict with each other, and thus mar their 
influence respectively: for if the state has no regard, in its administration, for religion, it 
will desecrate its most sacred institutions, as is the case in this land with respect to the 
Christian sabbath. 

Q. Is it not a dictate of nature (among those notices of God and our duty which we have 
independently of revelation) that God is to be worshipped by man, not only in his 
individual, but also in his social capacity? 

A. Yes. Hence we find, even the most savage benighted tribes have their social, and even 
national religious observances and festivals. 

Q. Have we not the substance of sabbatic institutions taught us by the light, of nature? 
A. Yes. Heathen nations have their stated times to public national homage to their gods. 

Q. Must not these times of social and public assembling for religious worship be 
appointed and regulated by national law? 



A. Yes. Because upon no other principle could there be a general concurrence of the 
community in the times of meeting, and the enjoyment of tranquillity and order when 
assembled. Hence all nations have their times of meeting for religious purposes fixed by 
a national decree. 

Q. Is not the idea of a nation destitute of the religious sentiment shocking to our moral 
nature? 

A. Yes. Religious sentiment and practice is absolutely essential to national happiness, and 
even its exististence-of the truth of which we have all awful illustration in the history of 
revolutionary France : where the leaders of the dominent factions discarded the religious 
sentiment, when iniquity in every monstrous form raised its head, and stalked through the 
land; virtue and piety were crushed; amd the blooming plains of France were saturated, 
and its rivers flowed with blood. 

Q. Did not Greece and Rome bear decided testimony to the high importance of a national 
faith, and incorporate with their constitutions laws respecting religion? 
A. Yes. The heathen teach us. These nations so celebrated in history, yielded a national 
allegiance to their gods, and aimed at the sanctification of their civil institutions and all 
their national enterprises, by the approbation of their gods. The State was the guardian of 
their religion and upon every victory they brought their national "votive offerings" to the 
temples of their gods. 

Q. Is there an object on the earth so sublime in its character and so worthy of national 
care as the Christian church? 

A. No. There is not among the ranks of created being one object worthy of comparison in 
point of sublimity with the Christian church-"A moral empire consisting of members 
animated by the Eternal Spirit, the Mediatory person, God manifest in the flesh, as its 
head, the vast machinery of creation moving in regular subordination to its interests, and 
exhibiting the ineffable glory of the Divinity, is an object to be contemplated with 
admiration and awe."-" Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined." 

Q. Is not the Headship of Christ over the nations a convincing argument in proof of the 
duty of nations to maintain and cherish his religion? 

A. There cannot be anything more conclusive. Christ's dominion over the nations, as over 
all other things, is for the good of the church. "He is head over all things to the Church ;" 
and certainly so important a part of his empire, as national society, is not exempted from 
the duty of exerting its influence for the welfare of that church, for the special benefit of 
which Christ is exalted " Lord of all. "As civil government is subjected to Him, it is with 
the intent that, in its administration, it shall contribute to the welfare of Zion. And this is 
done by a national embrace of his religion to the exclusion of all others, and an 
engagement to its support. 

Q. Have we not examples in the Old Testament scriptures, of this happy alliance between 
church and state? 

A. Yes, several. 1. The patriarchal system of government prevailed generally in the world 
until the time of Moses. The Patriarch was King and Priest, exercising a species of 



extended family government, in which, among the godly, all temporal affairs were 
managed in subserviency to religion. Such were Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, who 
" commanded their households to keep time way of the Lord." What an ancient Patriarch 
and his patriarchate or family did for advancing among themselves the interests of 
godliness, every nation as it body may and should in substance now do, for the present 
mode of government has succeeded this primitive institution-is merely an enlarged 
family. 2. Melchizedec was King of Salem, and at the same time Priest of the Most High 
God. His civil dominion was subservient to the interests of piety. 3. By divine authority 
the civil government of the Jews succeeded the primitive patriarchal institution-which 
was also rendered completely subservient to the religion of the Son of God. Legal 
countenance and support were given to the institutions of religion ; and Moses, Joshua, 
David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, concerned themselves in the capacity of 
civil rulers about the interests of the Church. The erection of places of worship-the 
support of the ministers of religion, the removal of obstacles-and the correction of abuses, 
occupied much of their attention. A clear evidence that union between church and state is 
not necessarily, and in itself sinful-else it never could at any time have received the 
divine approbation and sanction. 4. The union and co-operation of the King and the 
Priest. Moses and Aaron, Joshua and Eleazer, David and Abiathar, Solomon and Zadok, 
Hezekiah and Azariah, Zerubbabel and Joshua-and Samuel "who judged Israel and built 
an altar unto the Lord," vii. 19. 5. The example of Cyrus and Darius, Ezra i. 1-4 ; vi. 
9-12. Approved of God, vi. 12, 16, 20, 24, also viii. 10. 6. The King of Nineveh, when 
God's prophet denounced judgment, proclaimed a fast, giving an interesting example of 
the duty of magistrates to exercise a care about the moral and religious interests of their 
people. 

Q. Were not these examples, especially that of the subserviency of the Jewish civil policy 
to the true religion, designed to be limited to that dispensation? 

A. By no means-as is evident from the consideration, that it was founded in reason, or the 
immutable principles of Christian philosophy; for religion is intimately, yea, vitally 
connected with all that should be done by man in this life-, and lies at the foundation of 
all that, regards his prospects of future blessedness and glory ; and it is unreasonable to 
suppose that he should lose sight of it utterly the moment he acts as a member of the civil 
community. An immortal being should act everywhere with reference to his immortality. 
The reason is as valid to-day as in ancient times, and these examples are therefore to be 
copied in all succeeding ages. "What was written of old times was written for our 
instruction." 

Q. May not the duty of nations to acknowledge and support the true religion, be 
conclusively reasoned from the character of civil magistracy, as the ordinance of God de- 
scribed by the apostle in Rum. xiii. 2, .4 1 

A. The passage is conclusive, as is evident, 1 . From the title given of the ruler. "The 
minister of God." Can the ruler he the minister of God, and yet in his rule have no regard 
for religion? 2. From the objects of his office. "A terror to evil doers,'-a "revenger,"-" a 
terror to him that doeth evil." Are not offences against the first table, which relates to 
God and his worship, evils? Hr is also to be "a praise to them that do well." Are not the 
deeds of piety worthy of his countenance? If the magistrate is " the minister of God," and 



"a terror to evil doers," he must be so not only to the immoral, but to the profane and 
irreligious ; and if "a praise to them that do well," he must be so not only to the moral, 
but also the religious-inasmuch as the works of piety are incomparably more excellent 
and worthy of fostering care than those of cold morality. 3. Moreover, the passage 
teaches that civil magistracy is especially designed for the good of the saints. For they are 
particularly addressed,-" to thee," " the saints." Rom. i. 7. 

Q. Is not this argument confirmed by the reason given for the prayer for the conversion of 
magistrates who were notorious enemies of Christ and persecutors of his religion? I Tim. 
ii.l,2. 

A. Yes. For this is not a prayer for the success of an ungodly, immoral, civil power, but a 
prayer for the conversion of civil rulers to Christianity ; that their government being 
founded upon Christian principles, and its administration regulated by the Christian law, 
the subjects may live under its jurisdiction "a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness" 
or, which is the same thing, the practice of true religion. 

Q. Is not idolatry punishable at the judicial tribunals and is not this a proof of the care 
civil rulers should exercise about the true religion? 

A. Yes. Job declares it, xxxi. 26, 27, to be "an iniquity to be punished by the judge," and 
thereby teaches that the civil ruler should exercise a guardian care about religion in the 
suppression of idolatry. 

Q. 25. Does not the prophet Isaiah, xlix. 22, 23, write "Kings shall he nursing fathers," 
etc., forcibly teach the duty of civil governments to acknowledge and support the 
Christian religion ? 

A. Most clearly. The passage manifestly refers to New Testament times, and predicts that 
a prominent feature of those times shall be the subserviency of civil rulers to the church. 
The figure employed, of " nursing fathers," is a similitude which imports the most tender 
care, the most anxious solicitude, not mere protection, but active and unwearied 
nourishment and support. 

Q. Does this Passage give countenance to the opinion entertained by some, that the best 
thing the state can do for the church is "to let her alone"? 

A. Certainly not. Such an idea is utterly inconsistent with the figure. Strange and 
unnatural nurse, indeed, who takes no interest in the welfare of her feeble charge, but lets 
it alone, to shift for itself! On the contrary, the just import of the figure clearly teaches 
that in New Testament times it will be esteemed one of the most important and 
interesting functions of men in the most exalted civil stations, to nourish and cherish the 
church of Christ, as a tender nurse the beloved child committed to her charge. 

Q. Is the opinion of some correct, who, to neutralize the force of this passage, hold that 
rulers are here spoken of not in their official but in their private and personal capacity, 
inasmuch as "queens" may be here viewed not as queens regnant, but consort ? 

A. We answer in the words of Dr. Symington, " It is, however, far from self-evident that 
queens are spoken of here in the latter capacity; for every candid person will admit 



that the very same phraseology might asw naturally be employed in speaking of queens 
regnant in relation to their husbands as of kings regnant in relation to their wives. It is, 
therefore, not by any means clear that queens are here to be understood as consorts only ; 
or, admitting this, will the inference follow from it legitimately that the kings are to be 
understood merely in their private domestic capacity, as consorts of the queens. When 
subjects pray for the blessing of God on their king and his queen, as they are every day 
in the habit of doing, the queen is of course the queen consort, but surely it cannot for a 
moment be supposed that they do not refer to the monarch in his official capacity. 
Because his partner can only be viewed as associated with him in her private capacity. 
Yet it is only on such a supposition as this that the meaning we attach to the passage 
before us can be evaded. Even admitting then, for the sake of argument, the interpretation 
proposed with regard to queens, they are referred to only as consorts, the inference drawn 
from it with regard to kings, does not follow. It does not follow that kings are referred to 
only in their private capacity. The kings may still after all be kings regnant, and the 
utmost that the passage can be made to bear is, that both kings and whether regnant or 
consort, are bound to exert all the influence they possess, in their own proper spheres, to 
aid and foster the interests of- Messiah's kingdom in the world. Because queen consorts 
can do this, only in their own private sphere, it does not follow that kings regnant, in 
their proper sphere, are not also bound to do the same. On the contrary, the prediction 
before us leads us to conclude that in the times of the gospel, persons of the most exalted 
public stations shall exert their influence in behalf of the church of Christ." 

Q. Does not Isaiah, lx. 11, 12, 16, "Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they 
shall not be still day nor night: that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, 
and that their kings may be brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee 
Shall perish ; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. Thou shalt also suck the 
milk of the Gentiles, and shall suck the breast of kings," powerfully enforce this doctrine? 
A. Yes; with great power. "Here there cannot be the shadow of doubt about the sense in 
which kings are spoken of. The pronoun ' their' in this sentence, at least, is decidedly in 
favour of the view that they are to be regarded in their public capacity; they are spoken of 
as the people's kings, or kings in the possession and exercise of official power and 
influence. In this capacity they are represented as ministers to the church of Christ in 
various ways. Nor is this passage less decisive that it comprehends a threat of awful 
judgement denounced on such nations and rulers as shall refuse to yield the service 
required." 

Q. Have we not an additional argument of great weight in Ezek. xlv. 17, "It shall be the 
prince 's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings in the feasts, 
and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all the solemnities of the house of Israel, 
and he shall prepare the sin offering ?" etc. 

A. Very weighty indeed. The mysterious prophetic vision with which the words quoted 
are associated, is believed by all judicious commentators to refer to the church in New 
Testament times. Some portions of the figurative allusions are to us mysterious, but the 
passage quoted plainly teaches that in those times the civil ruler, in his official capacity, 
will contribute largely to the support of religious institutions. 



Q. Does not Psalm xlv. 12, "And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift, even the 
rich among the people shall entreat thy favour," beautifully instruct us in the same grand 
truth? 

A. It does. The church in this psalm is exhibited in the splendid array of a queen, the 
consort of Christ, the king of glory. The accession of the Gentiles to the church seems to 
be here predicted under the name of Tyre, a neighbouring city, and at that time the mart 
of the world; for even the richest of the nations will in due time submit to the Messiah, 
"consecrate their gain" to him, in support of his religion and kingdom, and court the 
friendship, and solicit the prayers of his church. "Thy favour," -The pronoun is feminine, 
and the queen, the church, is especially meant. 

Q. Have we not a further conclusive argument in Is. ii. 2, "And it shall come to pass in 
the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the tops of the 
mountain, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it ?" 
A. Unquestionably. "The last days," or latter days, signify the time of the Messiah. As 
Solomon's temple, the centre of Israel's worship, was placed upon a mountain, to which 
the people resorted with their sacrifices from distant places, so the church of Christ and 
its instituted worship are represented as a temple built upon a mountain. "Mountains" and 
"hills" are scripture symbols of the greater and lesser kingdoms of the earth (Amos iv. 1, 
Jer. Ii. 25), and the passage plainly teaches the establishment of the church by these 
kingdoms, or the national acknowledgment and support of the religion of Christ. 

Q. Does not Rev. xi. 15, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our 
Lord and of his Christ," forcibly teach this duty of nations? 

A. Very forcibly. Because its manifest interpretation is, that it teaches a national 
recognition of the authority of Christ, and a national profession of his religion as 
kingdoms promised to Christ. It is not the private and individual regard of many of the 
inhabitants of the land that constitute it the kingdom of its Prince, but the publicly 
declared and pledged alliance of the people, and of their representatives "It imports their 
becoming Christ's as formerly they had been antichrist's. As the nations under antichrist 
did acknowledge and submit to antichrist in a national way, so shall they as solemnly 
reject antichrist, and take Christ in his room, and become his people in a national 
capacity," by submitting to his authority and embracing and supporting the true religion. 

Q. Does not Rev. xxi. 24-26 beautifully seal this argument in proof of the duty of nations 
nationally to acknowledge and support the true religion? 

A. Yes. Here are glorious blessings promised. "The kings of the earth in the church." 
"The nations walking in the light of Zion." The kings of the earth promoting the 
prosperity of the church by consecrating time wealth and glory of their empires to the 
Son of God, to beautify the place of his sanctuary. 

Q. Is not the Christian religion, or church of Christ adapted to exert a benign influence 
upon the nation by which it is embraced? 

A. Yes, in a great variety of ways. 1. It teaches the true character of civil government, as 
a benign institution of heaven, or God's own minister for the promotion of the happiness 
of man, and is adapted by its teachings to restrain tyranny on the one hand, and to prevent 



anarchy on the other, be establishing the just spheres of rulers and ruled. 2. It. is 
favourable to true liberty, by checking selfishness and inspiring benevolence, and 
teaching a strict moral equality. 3. It operates favourably upon national wealth, as it 
requires all to "be diligent in business," for " he that will not work shall not eat ;" teaches 
moderation in the use of earthly good, and inspires all to exercise a tender regard for the 
poor, and prevent, or at least ameliorate, the evils of pauperism, " which spread like a 
leprosy over an immoral population." 4. Greatly promotes the peace of a nation. It 
proclaims "peace on earth and good will towards men ;" unites men and nations in the 
bonds of Christian love ; and securing peace with God, inclines its subjects to "follow 
peace with all men ;" and will ultimately eradicate the fierce and warlike passions of our 
depraved nature, and bring about, in proportion as it is nationally embraced, that blessed 
period when "nations shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into 
pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war 
any more". 5. It secures the true morality of a nation. It alone carries with it those ; t , 
influences by which corrupt man is changed in the disposition of his mind, and his 
affections are sanctified. Its laws and institutions are adapted to advance the same process 
of purification; particularly its Sabbath is a national blessing, as the most effectual 
instrumentality for the promotion of the national morality and piety. 6. It places the 
nation which embraces and practises it under the divine protection, and secures it "God's 
full flood" of blessings, so that by his arm it is defended against all its foes, and by his 
bounty it is rendered prosperous and happy Thus Israel was protected and blessed, as the 
nation adhered, to the religion of the Messiah ; but " wrath came upon it to the uttermost" 
when his religion was corrupted and abandoned. 

Q. Is not God's ordinance, as his minister, qualified to exert upon the Church the most 
happy influence ? 

A. Yes. 1. The state may legally recognise and protect the true religion, and thus make 
religion honourable in the nation, and secure to it a wide-spread influence. For this 
reason rulers, in scripture, are called "the shields of the earth," and as such, the property 
of Christ (Ps. xlvii) and "nursing fathers," so that by a just administration the pious may 
"lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty". 2. The civil government can 
interpose the sanction of the law, and thus secure a national observance of the Christian 
sabbath, without which sanction the church cannot enjoy in pence her Sabbaths, and 
without which institution the nation will become utterly demoralized. 3. The civil 
magistrate may restrain many things injurious to religion and the best interests of society. 
Prov. xx. 24, "A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them" 1 
Pet. ii. 14, "Governors, who are sent, for the punishment of evil doer, and for the praise 
of them that do well." Rom. xiii. 4. Gross blasphemy, profane swearing, open idolatry 
and the desecration of the Sabbath, are legitimate objects of magistratical interference, 
not merely as prejudicial to the commonwealth and offensive to the members of society, 
but as injurious to religion, and highly displeasing, to the Almighty. 2 Chron. xiv. 2-5 ; 
Job. xxxi. 26-21 4. A nation may maintain religion by pecuniary support, Numb, xviii. 
26, "When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them 
for your inheritance". 2 Chron. xxxi. 4, 5; Neh. x. 32, xiii. 10. Predictions, Psa. lxxii. 10- 
15; Is. lx. 3,6,9. 
Q. What will necessarily be the consequence to a nation of an entire separation of religion 



from the state? 

A. Civil society will become essentially and avowedly infidel and the nation be subjected 
to the terrible judgment denounced by Jehovah. Is. lx. 12. "The nation and kingdom that 
will not, serve thee (the church) shall perish; ye those nations shall be utterly wasted" 

Q. Is it practicable for the nations to maintain an entire neutrality respecting religion? 
A. No. The nations cannot separate themselves entirely from religion : but the evil is-they 
have usually assumed unhallowed supremacy over the church; and even where, in our 
own country, they profess indifference, they assume lordly power over the subject, and 
dare to place "the bride, the Lamb's wife" in the same position, as it respects their 
"nourishing" care, with the false systems, Muslim, Papal and Pagan. Christianity scorns 
mere toleration as an associate with idolatry, and superstition, and falsehood-she is 
exclusive and uncompromising, and demands implicit acknowledgment. 

Q. Is this a "peculiar" doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian Church? 
A. Nearly so. Some other denominations have maintained it. Generally it is loosely held; 
and has, of late, become unfashionable, through a spirit of conformity to all infidel world- 
and is now left by the many in the hands of the "two witnesses," to be maintained as a 
reviled and contemned portion of "the testimony of Jesus." 



SECTION IX. 



On the Spiritual Independence of the Church of Christ. 

Q. Is the church of Christ absolutely independent? 

A. No, she is not; inasmuch as she is in all things subject to her only King and Head, the 

Lord Jesus Christ. 

Q. In what, then, does her spiritual independence consist? 

A. Her spiritual independence consists in this— SHE IS ABSOLUTELY FREE FROM 

ALL MERELY HUMAN SUPREMACY. 

Q. If the civil ruler, as you have taught, is under obligation to acknowledge and support 
the church of Christ, as a nurse, must he not as a nurse have authority over it? 
A. The civil ruler is a nurse to the church merely as to the care he must exercise 
concerning it, in the supply of nourishment, &c. (Thou shalt suck the breast of kings), but 
he has no authority in nor over it, the authority is in the parent and Head of the church. 2 
Cor. vi. 18. " 1 will be a Father unto you, saith the Lord Almighty. " 

Q. In what light, then, are we to consider the administration of civil rulers respecting the 

church? 

A. Whatever service the civil ruler may be required by the law of God, to render the 

church, he acts only in his civil capacity, in the legitimate exercise of his civil rule, and 

not from any ecclesiatical authority in or over the church? 



Q. Does his ministry, then, respecting the church, simply regard things external to the 
church, things circa sacra, which relate only to her outward prosperity and comfort? 
A. This is the whole extent of his privilege in this respect. He acts simply as a civil ruler, 
who is "the minister of God" in that capacity, and is bound as such to promote the wel- 
fare of the church-or the interests of piety in the administration of the civil dominion with 
which he is intrusted. 1 Tim. ii. 2. Their administration is to be such, that Christians "may 
lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all GODLINESS and honest". 

Q. Are not church and state mutually dependent powers? 

A. By no means. They are co-ordinate, but not mutually dependent powers. They have 
distinct authority and spheres of action; and are mutually in their respective spheres, 
absolutely independent of each other. 

Q. What? Have you not taught us-that the church is to be "established" in the "tops of the 

mountains," and "exalted above the hills," pre-eminent above all the civil kingdoms of 

the world? Has she not, therefore, authority over the state? 

A. This pre-eminence of the church in the times referred to, respects her simply as an 

object of care, respect, and interest, to the nations of the earth-but does not inculcate the 

anti-Christian doctrine-that the church (or her officers) has any dominion over the 

nations. 

Q. What do you mean, then, by co-ordinate powers? 

A. Simply that they are powers which are equal as it respects authority, and strictly 
independent of each other; whilst, being respectively subject to the same supreme King 
and Lawgiver, they may live in happy alliance, and mutually co-operate, in their 
respective spheres, in the promotion of the same great ends-the glory of God, and the 
good of man. 

Q. May not church and state be mutually subservient, whilst they are not strictly 

subordinate, one to the other but mutually independent ? 

A. Subserviency is the proper term. Neither is subordinate to the other; but, as has been 

fully shown, they may happily, each in its own manner, subserve the interests of the 

other-the church promote the good of civil society, and the state foster the interests of 

piety. 

Q. Is the church, then, absolutely independent of all human control? 
A. Yes, strictly so. No earthly power, be it king, prelate, Pope, or synod-or "We the 
people (civilly or ecclesiastically viewed), has any right to domineer over the church. It is 
composed of Christ's freemen, and is itself free from all outward control. Mat. xxiii. 8, 9, 
10. "Call no man your father upon the earlh-neither be ye called masters." 

Q. May not the state extend to the church protection, and countenance, and pecuniary 
support, and friendly cooperation, without exercising any supremacy over her? 
A. Yes. All this, we have seen, the state may legitimately do-but has no right to dictate 
the creed of the church, to institute its laws, to appoint its ministers, or to interfere in any 



one way with either its constitution or administration. 

Q. May not the church exist, independently of, and even flourish, without the friendly 
alliance and co-operation of the state ? 

A. Yes. The church has not only existed, but, flourished independently of both these, and 
even in defiance of the wrath, opposition, and persecuting rage of the state-because she 
possesses a living and almighty energy-THE ETERNAL SPIRIT, to apply her truth, and 
render effectual her institutions upon the conscience and life of her members, and to 
gather in "the travail of the (Redeemer's) soul," and not all the power of the civil arm 
when made bare in wrath, and wielding the sword of persecution, has been, or can be, 
able to paralyse this energy. 

Q. Is it not pure and undisguised Erastianism to maintain that such alliance is essential to 
the being of the church? 

A. Yes. Such a principle is degrading to the honour of the church, and subversive of the 
very end of its existence. 

Q. Whilst this alliance is not essential to the existence, may it not be beneficial to the 
well-being of Zion? 

A. Yes. This is the proper light in which to contemplate the subject.. Human beings may 
exist without many external things, which, however, when possessed, conduce largely to 
their comfort, peace, and enjoyment: consequently, the fact of the church's capability of 
existence even in defiance the opposition of the state, constitutes no argument against 
their friendly alliance and co-operation, but is evidence, by contrast, of the mutual benefit 
of such alliance and co-operation. 

Q. Whilst church and state are strictly co-ordinate powers, and the latter has no dominion 
over the ecclesiastical society as such, and the former over the civil as such, may not the 
same persons, in respect of different relations be superior or inferior to another person, 
and may require another, and be themselves required, to fulfil relative duties; and in case 
of delinquency, may arraign others, or be themselves arraigned pursuant to the laws of 
their respective courts? 

A. Yes. Thus ministers, as ambassadors of Christ, have a right to require magistrates, as 
church members, faithfully to execute their magistratical power, so as may best promote 
the honour of Christ, and the welfare of his church; and in case of gross acts of 
maladministration, may inflict upon them censures of the house of God. And, on the 
other hand, magistrates have a right to require ministers as their subjects, faithfully to 
execute ministerial power, as an excellent means of rendering the nation pious and 
virtuous, in order that its happiness may thereby be promoted. 

Q. Will not this principle, if duly attended to, and piously applied, free the Westminster 

Confession of Faith from the false imputation of Erastianism, charged upon modern 

reformers? 

A. Most certainly. "There are several articles in twentieth, twenty-third, and thirty-first 

chapters, which been much inveighed against, as giving the magistrate much power in the 

church of Christ. Let it be considered that eo can convoke synods, not formally as 



ecclesiastical judicatories, but only as members of the commonwealth in which character 
they are his subjects. Rom. xiii. 1. "When convened, surely they are bound to do what is 
most calculated to promote the glory of God. If their synodical deliberations be calculated 
to do so, should they not essay them? Should they become remiss, ought he not to require 
them, as his subjects, to do their duty?" If he views these things with indifference, he 
cannot be "the minister of God for good to men" . 

Q. Where is this duty of magistrates clearly and scripturally expressed? 
A. It is clearly expressed and amply sustained by scripture in the following quotation 
from "Reformation Principles." "It is the duty of the Christian magistrate to take order, 
that open blasphemy and idolatry, licentiousness, and immorality be suppressed, and that 
the church of Christ be supported throughout the commonwealth; and for the better 
discharge of these important duties, it is lawful for him to call synods, in order to consult 
with them; to be present at them, not interfering with their proceedings, (unless they 
become manifestly seditious andl dangerous to the peace,) but supporting the 
independency of the church and its righteous decisions, and preserving its unity and order 
against the attempts of such despisers of ecclesiastical authority as should endeavour, in a 
riotous manner to disturb their proceedings." This doctrine is amply sustained by the 
following texts : Rom. xiii. 4 ; Lev. xxiv. 16 ; 2 Chron. xiv. 2, 1; Rev. xvii. 16 ; Prov, xx. 
26 ; Is. ci. 8; Prov, xiv. 34, xvi. 12 ; Is. xlix. 23, lx. 10-12, lxii. 4 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 3 ; 2 
Chron. xxix. 2, 4, 15, xxx. 22 ; Rev, xxi. 24 ; Dan. vii. 22 ; 2 Cor, x. 31 ; Ps. cxxxvii. 5, 
cxii. 7. 

Q. Would not such in exercise of authority infringe upon the liberty and independence of 
the church? 

A. By no means. Ii the friendly alliance supposed to exist between church and state, the 
latter has not only engaged to "nourish" the church, but the rulers of the church, in their 
sphere, have engaged to discharge their duty, for the good of the state, and it is perfectly 
within the sphere of the civil authority to require the ecclesiastical to do its duty 
according to the acknowledged constitution of the church, which has become the law of 
the land ; and so reciprocally in reference to the delinquency of the state authorities. 

Q. How are, we to regard any interference of the civil powers with the legitimate 
independence of the church? 

A. Such interference must be regarded as an unhallowed invasion of the rights of the 
people, and a monstrous usurpation of the inalienable rights and prerogatives of the 
church's glorious HEAD. 

Q. Has not the church greatly suffered from such interference ? 

A. She has. For from such interferences have sprung some of the grossest corruptions and 
severest sufferings of the church; and they cannot be too jealously watched against, or too 
indignantly repelled. 

Q. Is not patronage a gross invasion upon the liberty and indulgence of the church, and 

the prerogatives of her glorious, Head? 

A. Yes. It is one of the most daring invasions of right and usurpation of Christ's authority 



over the church, in as much its it subjects the minister of religion to the absolute control 
of the state. 

Q. What is patronage? 

A. By patronage we understand the right claimed for certain men, on the ground of 

property alone, to nominate ministers to parishes or congregations. 

Q. What may this definition comprehend? 

A. It may comprehend not only those cases in which one man exercises the right of 
nomination to the exclusion of all other parties, but those also in which men, on the 
ground of merely civil and secular qualifications, co-operate with a congregation in the 
selection of a minister. 

Q. In how many forms does this evil appear ? 

A. This evil, which we condemn, appears in many forms 1 . Whenever men, on account of 
superior wealth or elevated rank, assume the power of dictating a minister to the 
members of Christ's flock-there is patronage. 2. Whenever men unconnected -with the 
church by membership, are permitted on account of some largesse bestowed by them for 
the erection of a place of worship, to enjoy a share in the election of a minister- there is 
patronage. 3. Wherever, on condition of contributing to the support of the congregation, 
the interference of men, neither holding nor Seeking to hold the privileges of 
membership, is sanctioned in the choice of of a pastor-there is Patronage. 4. Wherever, by 
the erastian legislation of the state, a civil right to nominate ministers is conferred on 
men, who may be members of any church, or members of no church whatever-there is 
patronage, and there is a church enslaved. 

Q. Are not such claims, especially in the fourth form, utterly inconsistent with the 
Spiritual independence of the church? 

A. Yes, most clearly. For the church is a kingdom, as we have seen, under the 
administration of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a kingdom of which he is the supreme and 
sole Head. "This truth," to use the words of the famous Gillespie, "that Jesus Christ is a 
king, and hath a kingdom and government in his church distinct from the kingdoms of 
this world, and from the civil government hat this commendation and character above all 
other truths, that Christ himself suffered to death for it, and sealed it with his blood." 
Patronage interferes with the right of the Head of the church to legislate in all matters 
pertaining to the internal administration of his kingdom, and with her spiritual 
independence under him. 

Q. Can patronage stand the test of a reference to its origin ? 

A. Our Fathers, of the First Reformation in Scotland, clearly held that it could not, and 
they have recorded their conviction on the subject in language not to be misunderstood. 1. 
The Second Book of Discipline contains these words, "Because this order which God's 
word craves, cannot stand with patronage, and presentation to benefices, used in the 
Pope's Kirk, we deem all them that truly fear God, earnestly to consider that, forasmuch 
as the names of patronages and benefices, together with the effect thereof, have flowed 
from the Pope and corruption of the Canon law only -and, forasmuch as that manner of 



proceeding hath no ground in the word of God, they ought, not to have place in the light 
of Reformation." (1578.) To the same effect, we find the Reformers of 1649 issuing the 
following clear decision: "Considering that patronages and presentations of Kirks is an 
evil and bondage under which the Lord's people and ministers of the land have long 
groaned, and that it has no warrant in God's word, but is founded only in the Canon law, 
and a custom Popish, and brought into the Kirk in the time of ignorance and 
superstition," &c. This quotation from act of the Scottish Estate of Parliament sufficiently 
proves the origin to be in the darkness and superstition of Popery. 

Q. How did it originate in these dark and superstitious times? 

A. In several ways. 1 . Individuals and communities under the influence of superstitious 
notions built and endowed churches, and the law in recognition of this act of benevolence 
reserved for them and for their successors the disposal of the benefices. 2. Ambitious 
men, not satisfied with civil pre-eminence, gradually obtained the right of nominating to 
benefices, in order that their importance in the eyes of the vulgar might be enhanced by 
investiture with a spiritual prerogative. 3. There was another source of patronage. Wily 
ecclesiastics, intent upon wealth and aggrandizement, fostered the notion that by human 
merit divine favour was acquired. Largesses to the church were exhibited as meritorious 
in the highest degree, by many plain-spoken statements, and many convenient innuendos. 
In return for such kindness, the right of patronage was assigned to the deluded votaries 
of superstition. 

Such was the origin of patronage. Let us never forget, however, that hired charity 
is but an equivocal virtue, whilst a church that could sanction the bestowment of 
ecclesiastical privileges for money will find its prototype in Simon Magus with greater 
success than its first Pope in Simeon Peter. 

Q. What is therefore the character of Patronage in any and all of its forms? 

A. It is it gross violation of the rights of the freemen of Christ, and usurpation of His 

royal prerogatives as King in Zion; and thus subverts the spiritual independence of the 

church. 

Q. In how many ways may a nation violate the independence of the church? 
A. In a great many ways. 1 . When civil rulers claim the right of prescribing a creed or 
confession to the church, and, perhaps, of enforcing submission to it by civil penalties. 2. 
When they undertake to regulate the government of the church, in virtue of usurped 
supremacy over her. 3. When they claim a right of nominating her office-bearers, or of 
authoritatively determining in whose hands that right shall be placed. 4. When they 
control the meetings ecclesiastical courts, convening, proroguing, or dissolving them at 
pleasure; or limiting them with regard to the matters discussed in them. 5. When they 
tamper with the worship of the church, loading it with rites and ceremonies, and 
disguising the beautiful simplicity of New Testament worship, by pompous additions of 
human inventions. 6. When they interfere with the discipline of the church, by admitting' 
or excluding members, annulling ecclesiastical censures, or dictating terms of Church 
fellowship. Let her "standfast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made her 
free. " 
Q. Is it, indeed, a truth that Christ hath granted to his people the right of electing their 



own pastors free from the yoke of patronage in any of its aspects? 

A. Yes. Acts xiv. 23, were it alone, would be sufficient proof. "And when they had 

ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended 

them to the Lord," &c. Xsipoxovsco (ordained) signifies to hold out the hand, 

compounded of xsip, the hand, and xsiveo, to extend. The action of holding out the hand 

is expressive of choice and resolution. It marks a decision of the will, whether intended or 

executed. 

The word is used to signify divine appointment, Acts x. 21; human choice, 2 Cor. 
viii. 19 ; and it signifies to elect to office by holding up the hand. "At Athens some of the 
magistrates were called xsipoTOvnToi, because they were elected by the people in this 
manner. "-Parkhurst. " Election and consequent ordination of elders in the church! Thus it 
is manifest from the critical import Of the Passage that Christ hath conferred the right of 
the choice of pastors, by the free suffrages of the members of the church, without respect 
of persons, and thus in this respect secured the independence of His church. 

Q. Has not the free Church of Scotland given a noble testimony to this right of Christ's 
people, and His crown right as the sole King in Zion? 

A. Yes. She has nobly unrolled one fold of the ancient flag of the Covenanter, and 
brought to view a portion of its glorious inscription, Christ's crown. But to be a 
consistent witness, she must testify to Christ's prerogative of "KING OF kings, and 
dissenting from the British ecclesiastico-civil constitution "as a horn of the Beast, " unfurl 
the whole ancient flag, and display the full inscription, in rich emblazonry, CHRIST'S 
CROWN AND COVENANT. 

SECTION X. 



On the Right and Duty of Dissent from an immoral Constitution of 

Civil Government. 

Q. Is civil Society a voluntary or involuntary association? 

A. Civil society is a voluntary association. Men are not only social being, but rational and 
free agents, and all have naturally equal rights; and, consequently, have a right to judge of 
the character of the government about to be constituted, or already constituted, and to 
unite with it, or not, as their best judgment may determine. "Prove all things; hold fast 
that which is good." 

Q. Is a civil government bound to admit to its peculiar privileges every person who may 
reside within the reach of its power? 

A. Certainly not. Government is, indeed, bound to extend a paternal care over all, and 
should oppress none; but it is not under obligation to admit every character to the 
enjoyment of all its peculiar privileges; for the ignorance and immorality of some, and 
the oaths which bind others to a foreign power (the papists to the Pope, for example) may 
utterly disqualify them for the discharge of the duties of loyal citizens. 

Q. Has every government a right to enact laws of naturalization? 



A. Yes, every government has a right to define the principles upon which it will admit 
aliens to the enjoyment of full citizenship. Deut, xxiii. 8: "The children that are begotten 
of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in the third generation." Acts xxii. 
27, 28: "tell me, Art thou a Roman? He said, Yes. And the chief captain answered, With a 
great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born." 

Q. Is every person, dwelling within the limits of a nation, bound to incorporate with the 

national society? 

A. By no means. He may claim the Privilege, as Israel in Egypt of a sojourner in the land, 

without fully incorporating with the national society. Gen. xlvii. 4: "And they 

said unto Pharaoh, For to sojourn in the land are we to come." See, also, Numb. x. 29, 30; 

Heb. xi. 9. 

Q. Does not every individual possess the right of expatriation? 

A. Yes, every individual has a right to change his residence and his country, and thus 
dissolve the bonds which may have bound him to a particular community, Heb. xi. 16: 
"And truly if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they 
might have had opportunity to have returned." 

Q. Are nations, in making laws of naturalization, and individuals in the exercise of the 
right of expatriation, at liberty to act arbitrarily according to their own will? 
A. No. Both these rights are to be exercised in conformity to the law of God, the supreme 
Ruler and Judge. The laws, in the one case, must be founded on justice; and the 
individual, in the other, must be satisfied that by expatriating himself he can best promote 
the glory of God as well as his own good. James iv. 12, 15: "There is one lawgiver... . For 
that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." 

Q. Is not the individual, who declines incorporating with the national society, entitled to 

protection, in the enjoyment of his inalienable rights-life, liberty, and the pursuit of 

happiness? 

A. Unquestionably. Numbers xv. 15: "One ordinance shall he both for you of the 

congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourner with you: as ye are, so shall the 

stranger be before the Lord." Exod. xxii. 21: "Thou shalt neither vex the stranger, nor 

oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." 

Q. Is it the duty of Christians to profess allegiance to any government that may exist in 
Providence, however hostile to the kingdom of Christ, though sustained by the majority 
of those within the reach of its Power? 
A. By no means. 

Q. Why? Is it not said, "The powers that be are ordained of God? and let every soul be 
subject ?" 

A. The reasons are many. 1 . The powers ordained of God have been shown, in a former 
section, to be moral powers. The authority which he sanctions, and to which he 
commends conscientious allegiance, is one which is "a terror to evil doers, and a praise to 
them that do well." 2. Such Powers as oppose God and Christ, are not ordained of God 



in any other sense than "the prince of the power of the air," whom they serve, is. 3. There 
are "thrones of iniquity which decree mischief by a law," with which God will not "have 
fellowship". Ps. xciv. 20. 4. Existing governments are the organs of the devil. Rev. xiii. 
12 ; xii. 9. "And the Dragon ('the Devil and Satan) gave him (the Roman empire, under 
all its forms of government, and especially in present divided state,) his power, and his 
seat, and great authority." 5. They are described as waging war, at the present time, with 
the Lamb, God's Vicegerent. Rev. xvii. 14: "These (the ten kingdoms of the beast) shall 
make war with the Lamb." God, certainly, does not require any one to yield allegiance to 
such. 6. Consequently, "No power which deprives the subject of civil liberty, which 
wantonly squanders his property, and sports with his life, or which authorizes false 
religion, (however it may exist according to Divine providence,) is approved of or 
sanctioned by God, or ought, to be esteemed and supported by men, as a moral 
institution." Prov. xxix. 2: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but 
when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." xxviii. 16 : "As a roaring lion, and a 
raging bear, so is a wicked ruler over the poor people." Hos. viii. 4:"They have set up 
kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not." Also, Ps. xciv. 20; ii. 2. 
7. It follows necessarily, that to such powers Christians cannot bind themselves in 
allegiance, and maintain a moral subjection to Christ. Allegiance to governments of such 
a character is rebellion against Heaven. 

Q. What kind of submission may; be rendered to immoral and tyrannical governments, 
the ordinance of Satan, such as now exist? 

A. Christians, in the exercise of their Christian liberty, and in the performance of the duty 
"proving all things, and holding fast what is good," can submit to such governments "for 
wrath 's sake, " ONLY, which kind of submission has no respect to the power as 
legitimate authority, but simply, from dread of the cruelty of the tyrant, who pours forth 
his fury upon all who oppose his misrule. To God's moral ordinance as described, is 
allegiance due for conscience sake. Submission to this is submission to God. 

Q. When Christians reside under an immoral government, is not conformity to the 
general order of society a duty, provided this can be done without violating the divine 
law? 

A. If the constituted authorities of a nation are not in voluntary subserviency to the 
Mediator, but, opposed to authority, law, and religion, for the sake of peace and order, 
and for the sake of contributing as much as possible to the ease and happiness of society, 
and from a spirit of resignation to the Divine providence, and in order to make legitimate 
provision for themselves and relatives, so much conformity to the prevailing system as is 
consistent with their oath of allegiance to Messiah, is a duty conscientiously to be 
practised, although very distinct from that obedience for conscience sake which they 
would render to the government of their choice, to the authority which has the sanction of 
the Divine approbation. Jer, xxix. 4-7, " Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused 
you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof 
shall ye have peace." 

Q. Whilst it is the duty of Christians thus to live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness 
and honesty, in conformity to the laws of Christ, which are everywhere, and at all times, 



obligatory upon them-is it not their duty publicly to declare their dissent from an immoral 
constitution of civil government, within the reach of whose power they may reside? 
A. This is, indeed, their duty. Because, 1. They are bound to defend God's moral 
ordinance of civil government, in the purity of which, God's own honour as "the 
Governor of the nations," is deeply involved. Rev. ii. 26, 20, "That which you have 
already hold fast till I come; and he that overcometh-and. Keepeth my works unto the 
end-to him will I give power in the nations," &c. Isa. viii. 16, "Bind up the testimony, 
seal the law among my disciples." 2. The purity of this holy ordinance cannot be 
preserved, if it is confounded with the existing immoral systems, and by an 
indiscriminate exercise of allegiance. 3. Christians are witnesses for God among men ; 
and having in their possession " the testimony of God," in the Holy Scriptures, respecting 
the true character of civil government, and the duty of national subjection to Christ and 
his law, and respect for the holy religion, it is their duty to apply the doctrines of 
inspiration upon this subject, in stating and defending the truth and condemning the 
existing immoral systems, and in bearing public testimony against all who uphold them. 
Is xliii, .10, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord." Rev. xi. 3, "I will give power to my 
two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three score days, 
clothed in sackcloth;" xii. 17, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to 
make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have 
the testimony of Jesus Christ." See also Rev. xvii. 14, Acts v. 32, xxvi. 16, Micah iv. 8- 
1 8, Mark vi. 11. 4. The witnesses in Revelation are raised up not only to testify against 
the ecclesiastical apostasy, "the scarlet woman," or Roman church-and "the image of the 
beast"'-the Papacy -but also against "the seven-headed and ten-horned" beast-or the civil 
powers-upon which the woman rides. The nations which sustain Antichrist, and are 
equally, with "the man of sin," Antichristian, and are at war with the Lamb. See passages 
last quoted, together with Rev. xiii. 1, 2, xvii. 3-14, and xii. 11, "And they overcame him, 
(the devil embodied in the Roman church papacy, and civil powers,) by the blood of the 
Lamb and by the word of their testimony" xvii. 14, "These, (the civil powers,) shall make 
war with the Lamb-and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King 
of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." 

Q. Are not virtuous persons, who, in their private capacity, are endeavouring to further 
the true end of civil government-the maintenance of peace and quietness in all godliness 
and honesty, although they dissent from the constitution of civil government of the nation 
in which they reside, entitled to protection? 

A. They certainly are entitled to protection in their lives, liberties, and property; " but 
they are not to act inconsistently with their declared dissent, and it would be tyranny to 
constrain them to such measures." Exod. xxii. 21, "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor 
oppress him." See also Rom. xiii. 3, 1 Tim. ii. 2, Jer. xxi. 12, Esther iii. 8, 9. 

Q. Should not "Christians, testifying against national evils, and striving, in the use of 
moral means to effect a reformation, relinquish temporal privileges, rather than do any- 
thing which may appear to contradict their testimony, or lay a stumbling-block before 
their weaker brethren ?" 

A. This is still questionably their duty. Because they cannot convince men of their own 
sincerity, and of the immorality of a principle or practice, whilst they themselves are 



found actually maintaining the immoral principle or practice, (by oath of allegiance, 
voting, and holding offices, &c.,) and enjoying the emoluments of iniquity decreed by 
law. Heb. xi. 24, 26, 36, "By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be 
called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. Esteeming the reproach of Christ to be greater 
riches than the treasures in Egypt. And others had trials of cruel mockings and 
scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonments." Numb, xxiii. 9, "Lo, the people 
shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." Rom. xiv. 21, "It is good 
neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is 
offended." 

Q. Will not such a public dissent from immoral governments, and faithful testimony 
against them, ultimately prevail to their overthrow? 

A. Yes. By these means the witnesses will prevail, however much they may suffer in the 
meantime, and will be the honoured instruments of establishing the millennial kingdom 
of the Lamb. Rev. xii. 11, "And they overcame him, by the blood of the Lamb and by the 
word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." Dan. vii. 22, "the 
Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High ; and the 
time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." Rev. xx. 4, "And I saw thrones, and 
they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them ; and I saw the souls of them that 
were beheaded for the witness of Jesus' and for the word of God, and which had not 
worshipped the beast, (the civil powers,) neither his image, (the Papacy,) neither had 
received his mark, (yielded allegiance,) upon their foreheads, or in their hands ; and they 
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." 

Q. Is not this doctrine of the right and duty of dissent from immoral constitutions of civil 
government, a doctrine peculiar to the Reformed Presbyterian Church? 
A. Yes. It is a principle peculiar to them, for they alone hold it as a doctrine, and 
allegiance, a practical exemplification of it by refusing oaths of allegiance, voting at the 
polls, and holding office,-and other modes by which they can declare their dissent from 
the immoral constitutions of government where they reside, and testify publicly against 
them, and exhibit in contrast the excellency and majesty of civil government as the moral 
ordinance of heaven. 

SECTION XL 



On the Duty of Covenanting and the Permanent Obligations 

of Religious Covenants. 

Q. What is a covenant? 

A. A covenant in a mutual engagement between two parties, in which certain 

performances are stipulated on the one band, and certain promises on the other. 

Q. Wherein does a covenant differ from a law, a vow, and an oath? 

A. 1 . It differs from a law in this, that it supposes mutual stipulations, while in a law there 

is no stipulation whatever, but simply the authority of a superior enjoining obedience on 



an inferior 2. It differs from a vow, inasmuch as, while a covenant supposes engagement 
on both sides, a vow supposes engagement on one side only; a person who vows 
engaging to perform some particular service without any promise being supposed to be 
annexed to the performance. 3. It differs from an oath; an oath being nothing more than a 
solemn appeal to God for the truth of some assertion that is made, without, as in a 
covenant, either an engagement to duty, or promise of reward. 4. In a covenant, then, 
there is engagement by two parties-in a vow there is engagement by one party only-in an 
oath there is no engagement at all. 

Q. Does a covenant, whilst it differs from each, at the same time suppose the existence of 
a law, and include both an oath and a vow? 

A. Yes. "A covenant proceeds upon the supposition of something being obligatory, and 
here is the idea of law. It implies an engagement to perform what is admitted to possess 
the obligation ; and here is the idea of a vow. It supposes the covenanter to appeal to God 
with regard to the sincerity of his intentions, and here is the idea of an oath." 

Q. Are the terms covenant, vow, oath, used interchangeably to describe the same 

transaction? 

A. Yes. According as one or other of these is designed to be prominently expressed, the 

same deed may be described by one or other of these terms. 

Q. What does a covenant suppose in addition to the above definition, and as expressing a 

difference between a law, a vow, or an oath? 

A. It supposes the promise of a reward which is not necessarily involved in any of the 

others. 

Q. Are covenants either civil or religious? 

A. Yea. 1 . Civil, when entered into between man or society of men with respect to the 
affairs of this life. 2. Religious, when entered into between God and men with respect to 
the duties men owe to God, more especially religious duties. 

Q. Are religious covenants either personal or social? 

A. They are both. 1. Personal, when an individual engages, on the one hand, to keep the 
commandments of the Lord, and takes hold by faith, on the other, of God's gracious 
promise. 2. Social, when a society engages with joint concurrence to perform certain 
duties, and to embrace with one heart the precious promises of Jehovah. 

Q. Is it competent to any society, be it a family, a church, or a nation, to enter with 
common understanding and consent into a federal [covenanting] transaction? 
A. Yes. And when this is done by a large corporate body, the transaction is called a 
public social covenant, which is the subject of consideration in this section. 

Q. What is public social covenanting? 

A. It is a solemn religious transaction in which men, with joint concurrence avouch the 
Lord to be their God, and engage, in all the relations of life, to serve him by obedience to 
his law, in the performance of all civil and religious duties in the confidence of his favour 



and blessing in the fulfilment to them of all his gracious promises. Deut. xxix. 10-13. "Ye 
stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your 
elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, Your little ones, your wives, and thy 
stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: 
That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which 
the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: That he may establish thee to day for a 
people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as 
he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." Josh, xxiv. 1, 25. 2 
Chr. xv. 9, 12, 15. Is. xix. 18. Jer. xi. 10. 

Q. By what arguments can it be proved that public social covenanting is of divine 
authority, and so of moral obligation? 

A. By numerous arguments. 1. The light of nature. The mariners of Tarshish, Jonah i. 16. 
"Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and 
made vows. " Epictetus, a heathen moralist, thus expresses himself: "To this God we 
ought to swear an oath, such as the soldiers swear to Caesar. They indeed, by the 
inducement of their wages, swear that they will value the safety of Caesar before all 
things; and will you, then, honoured with so many and so great benefits not swear to God 
or having sworn, will you not continue steadfast? 2. Scripture precepts. Ps. lxxvi. 11. 
"Vow and pray unto the Lord your God." Jer. iv. 6. "Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in 
truth, in judgment, and in righteousness." Also xliv. 26, and ]deut. x. 20. 2 Chr. xxx. 8. 
"Yield (give the hand) yourselves unto the Lord-and serve the Lord your God; " and Rom 
vi. 13, Mat. v. 33. "Thou shall perform unto the Lord thy oaths. " Rom xii. 1. 3. Scripture 
examples. Deut. xxvi. 15-19. "Thou hast avouched the Lord to be thy God-and the Lord 
hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people-that thou shouldst keep all his 
commandments." xxix. 10-13. Quoted above, Josh. xxiv. 1, 25-" So Joshua made a 
covenant with the people that day," &c. 2 Kings xi. 17. "And Jehoiada made a covenant 
between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord's people." 
xxiii. 1,2; also, Neh. x. 29, &c 

Q. Is not covenanting a duty confined to ancient times, and not obligatory under the 
present dispensation? 

A. As it is of moral obligation, it is consequently a duty incumbent upon present times; 
for things which are moral do not diminish in their obligation by the lapse of time. 

Q. By what arguments can its obligation in New Testament times, be solidly proved? 
A. By the following. 1. It was obviously a duty under the Old Testament dispensation, 
and being nowhere repealed, and being moral and not typical, it is of present obligation. 
Ps. lxxvi. 11, "Vow and pray unto the Lord your God." 2. Scripture prophecies, evidently 
referring to New Testament times, and even yet to be fulfilled. Is. xix. 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 
"In that day (the latter day) shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of 
Canann, and swear to the Lord of hosts" &c, &c. Jer. iv. 4, 5. "In those clays (Mil- 
lennial), and in that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel shall come, they and the 
children of Judah together, going and weeping; they shall go and seek the Lord their God. 
They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come and let us join 
ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten. " 3. The New 



Testament recognises the obligation. Rom. vi. 13. Compare 2 Chr. xxx. 8, 2 Cor. viii. 5. 
"The Macedonian churches, says Paul, "Not as we hoped, but first gave their ownselves 
unto the Lord, and unto us by the will of God." Not in the Lord's supper, which Paul 
certainly hoped they would do, but to his surprise, in a public social covenant. Rom. i. 31. 
"Covenant breakers" have a place in the catalogue of sinners, whose conduct is 
denounced as displeasing to the Almighty; which could not be the case, unless on the 
supposition of the continued obligation of covenanting. 4. It was one of the distinguishing 
privileges of the Jews to be in covenant with God. "I am married unto you, saith the 
Lord:" The privileges of the New Testament dispensation are increased and not 
diminished. Heb. xii. 18, 22. 5. This duty is involved in the church's relation to God, as a 
married relation. Hos. ii. 19, 20 ; Eph. v. 30, iv. 25. Covenanting is only a solemn 
recognition of this relation, and engagement to evidence this by a life and conversation 
becoming the Gospel. Is. Ixii. 4, evidently alludes, to New Testamnent times, and 
celebrates not only an ecclesiastical, but national marriage. By the marriage of a land 
unto God, we are not to understand that the trees of the forrest, the mountains or plains 
come under engagements. Surely it must be the nation inhabiting the land. National 
marriage implies a national deed whereby the inhabitants, in their national capacity, 
solemnly covenant unot God. 6. The duty, when performed in its true spirit, is a source 
of unspeakable benefit, to a people; and, as nations seek the blessing, they should 
perform the duty. Ps. cxliv. 15, "Happy is that people that is in such a case ; yea happy is 
that people whose God is the Lord." Bound to God and he to them in "an everlasting 
covenant, not to be forgotten." 

Q. Have covenants a distinct intrinsic obligation peculiar to themselves? 
A. Yes. Covenants possess an obligation distinct from God's law. The covenanter is 
brought under an additional obligation to do the will of God. He is bound not merely by 
the naked authority of the divine word, but by his own voluntary act. "The covenant does 
not bind to anything additional to what the law of God contains, but /'/ additionally binds- 
it superinduces a new and different obligation. As in the case of an oath. The obligation 
to tell the truth is universal and perpetual; but an oath brings the person who swears, 
under an additional obligation. Before he took the oath, if he deviated from the truth, he 
was guilty simply of lying; now he is guilty of perjury. Before, he violated only the 
authority of God; now he violates both the authority of God and the obligation of his 
oath." 

Q. What constitutes the formal reason of covenant obligation? 

A. It is the personal act of the covenanter which constitutes the formal reason why a duty, 
when sworn to, is binding as a covenant duty, and not the obligation of the divine law, or 
morality of the act. "Were the morality of the duty the reason of covenant obligation, then 
all mankind would be formally covenanters, because the reason extends unto all, 
inasmuch as the moral law binds every man. Thus covenanting would be a mere cypher, 
and carry no obligation in it at all; for it does not affect the morality of the duty, that 
being the same before as after covenanting." 

Q. Are public social covenants of continuous obligation? or, are they binding upon the 
posterity of the original covenanters as long as the corporate body exists; or, until such 



time as the object for which they were framed has been accomplished? 

A. They are and this position is sustained by forcible arguments. 1. We find posterity 
recognised in all the transactions between God and Jacob, at Bethel. Gen. xxviii. 13; 
compared with Hosea xii. 4. "He found him (Jacob) in Bethel, and there he spake with 
us. " 2. We have another remarkable instance of the transmission of covenant obligation 
to posterity in Deut. v. 2, 3. "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The 
Lord made not this covenant with our fathers (only) but with us, even us, who are all of 
us here alive this day." 3. Another example occurs in Deut. xxix. 10-15 ; the covenant is 
here made with three descriptions of persons. 1. With those addressed adults. "Neither 
with you only." 2. Minors. "Him that standeth here with us." 3. Posterity. "Him that is not 
here with us this day"-for this could have no reference to any of the Israelites then in 
existence, as they were all present. It must, therefore, include posterity, together with all 
future accessions to the community. With them, Moses informs us, the covenant was 
made, as well as with those who actually entered into it, in the plains of Moab. 4. Another 
instance in which posterity is recognised in covenant obligation is found in Joshua ix. 15. 
This covenant was made between the children of Israel and the Gibeonites. Between four 
and five hundred years after that time, the children of Israel are visited with a very severe 
famine in the days of David. 2 Sam. xxi. 1 . And it is expressly declared by the Lord that, 
"It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." And at the 
same time, v. 2, that very covenant is recognised, and the breach of it is stated, as being 
the formal reason of the divine displeasure. Now, had it not been for this covenant, the 
extirpation of the Gibeonites would not have been imputed to Israel as a thing criminal ; 
for they were comprehended in Canaanitish nations which God had commanded them to 
root out. 5. Posterity were charged with the sin of violating the covenant of their 
ancestors. Jer. xi. 10. '"The house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have broken my 
covenant which I made with their fathers" -by which they are evidently considered as 
bound. 6. The principle of federal representation confirms this doctrine. Thus when 
Joseph made a covenant with his brethren, that they should carry up his bones from Egypt 
to the land of promise. He assumed that those whom he addressed, were the 
representatives of their successors, as he knew well that the whole of that generation 
should die before the deliverance of Israel by Moses. Posterity recognized the obligation. 
Ex. xiii. 19. A similar case of federal representation, is that of the Gibeonites quoted 
above. 6. Infant baptism is a forcible illustration of the continuous obligation of 
covenants. 7. The principle of the transmissibility of the obligations of covenants to 
posterity, is recognised by civilians in civil matters. In the obligations, for example, of the 
heir of an estate, for the engagements of his predecessor in the possession of it. All 
national treaties and other engagements of the corporate body, descend with all their 
weight upon succeeding generations." 

Q. Upon what is the principle in question founded? 

A. "The principle in question is founded in the right which parents have to represent their 
posterity in certain social transactions. It is supposed in the continued identity of Society 
throughout successive generation. And it naturally enough follows from the Common 
interest, which children have along with their parents, in those objects for which federal 
deeds are framed. In this case representation springs, not from choice, as when men 



appoint their civil and ecclesiastical functionaries, but from the appointment of God, from 
a divinely authorized constitution-a constitution the existence of which is distinctly 
recognised when it is said, "Levi paid tithes in Abraham, for he was yet in the loins of his 
father when Melchizedec met him. " Here the principle is clearly admitted by God 
himself. 

Q. What is the reason of this continuous obligation of covenants? 

A. 1. God will have it so. 2. The permanency of the subject coming under the obligation. 
The church and nations are corporations existing and perpetuated in the succession of 
generations-one generation passeth away and another cometh — the succeeding coming 
into the obligations of the preceding — and God as a party to such deeds always exists. 3. 
The sameness of the relation to the moral Governor of the universe. The corporation and 
all its members are related God as moral subjects to a rightful sovereign. The duties being 
moral to which the covenant binds, by virtue of the moral relation of the corporate society 
to the Divine Sovereign in its successive generations, it is bound by the deed. 4. 
Obedience to God, according to his law, is a debt which no one generation can fully pay, 
and remains to each successive generation the same — hence the covenant obligation must 
be continuous. 5. Covenanting is a means of holiness-each successive generation needs to 
be sanctified, and consequently each successively needs this instrumentality — hence 
covenant obligation is transmitted with the stream of succeeding generations. 

Q. Is not the principle of the transmissible nature of the obligation of public social 
covenants founded in reason and equity? 

A. Yes. "The principle is this, that, when the matter of a covenant is lawful, and the 
parties continue to exist, the covenant itself retains its obligation until the object it con- 
templates has been gained. Thus a covenant between God and the church or between God 
and a nation, continues obligatory long after the original framers of it have been gathered 
to their fathers. The object contemplated may be a degree of Reformation hitherto 
unattained. The parties, too, must be held as continuing to exist, God the one party being 
the eternal God, and the church, or the nation, the other party, continuing in virtue of that 
identity which a corporate body possesses. This identity is not affected by the constant 
changes society may undergo as regards its individual members, just as the incessant 
changes which take place in the particles of the human body have no effect in destroying 
the personal identity of the individual." 

Q. Is not this principle of the continuously transmissible obligation of covenants highly 
advantageous in its tendency? 

A. Yes. 1. "It strengthens that sense of gratitude to God by which men are stimulated to 
obedience, by leading the children to reflect on his goodness, in having regard to their 
welfare in the covenant made with their fathers, and comprehending them in the same 
federal transaction. Thus Peter reminds the Jews, Acts iii. 28, "Ye are the children of the 
prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers" 2. It inspires confidence 
in the promised mercies of God, and affords ground to hope that he who has been 
gracious, in times that are past, to the fathers, will be gracious still to their children. Thus 
Moses encouraged the people of Israel. Deut. iv. 32: "he will not, forsake thee, neither 
destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers, which he sware unto them." 3. It 



furnishes a powerful argument in pleading with God at a throne of grace, as we find it 
exemplified and confirmed in Jeremiah's expostulation with God concerning the state of 
his nation ; xiv 22, "Do not abhor us for thy name's sake; do not disgrace the throne of 
thy glory; remember, break not thy covenant with us." 4. It throws a shield over a people 
by which the wrath of God is averted. Lev. xxvi. 44, 45: '"Yet for all that,' says the Lord, 
' when they lie in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor 
them to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their 
God. But I will, for their sakes, remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I 
brought out of the land of Egypt.'" 5. It is not less fitted to keep up a remembrance of the 
wonderful things done by God on behalf of a people, by forming a record of them, and 
furnishing a medium for their transmission from generation to generation. Accordingly 
we find the command, I Chron. xvi. 12-15, "Remember his marvellous works that he hath 
done, his wonders and the judgments of his mouth", connected with the injunction, "Be 
ye mindful always of his covenant, the word which he commanded to a thousand 
generations." 6. Above al, it is eminently fitted, by begetting a delightful mutual interest 
between fathers and children, to promote and display the UNITY of the church. The 
fathers, by being required to transact for the children, and the children, by being required 
to recognise the deeds of the fathers, must be inspired with a double and most salutary 
interest in each other. All selfish and exclusive feeling is in this way rebuked. The present 
generation are taught to look back to the past, as the past are supposed to have looked 
forward to the future. Distant periods are united, and the interests of different generations 
concentrated." Jn. xvii. 11: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name, those whom 
thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. " 

Q. Is covenanting a stated and ordinary, or occasional and extraordinary duty? 
A. It is occasional and extraordinary. 

Q. What are some of the times and seasons in which the church, or a nation, is called on 
to engage in this extraordinary yet important duty? 

A. They are many and various. 1 . Times of public humiliationybr apostasy from God. Jer. 
1. 4, 5. 2. Times of affliction. Neh. ix. 1,38; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 29-32. 3. Times of public 
reformation. 2 Kings xxiii. 1 — 3. 4. Times of public thanksgiving for special 
delivceances. 2 Kings xi. 17-20; Ps. lxxvi. 11.5. When there is great lukewarmeness and 
a tendency to backsliding. Dent. xxix. 10-15. 6. In view of severe conflict with the 
enemies of the truth, to consolidate and strengthen the Lord's host. For example -Israel 
before crossing the Jordan. Ps. xliv. 3; Heb, xi. 32 — 38. So our Fathers — and now against 
the combined "armies of the aliens." Rev. xix. 11. 7. Times of refreshing from the 
presence of the Lord. Is. xliv. 3-5. 8. When jealousies and contentions prevail, and there 
is a tendency to schism, covenanting will be a happy mode of "binding up the testi- 
mony"-which is in danger of being rent by schism. 

Q. Are there not reasons forcibly urging the present performance of this duty? 
A. Yes. There are many and forcible reasons. 1. The present is a time when reformation 
is demanded both in church and state. 2. A time of peculiar temptations to draw back. 3. 
A time of misunderstanding and misapprehension among professors. 4. A time when the 
faithful performance of the duty may operate as a means :of conviction upon the enemies 



of truth. 5. A time of suffering. Neh. ix. 38; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 21, 31, 32. 6. A time in which it 
is necessary revive the sense of covenant obligation, which has lamentably declined, and 
is very feeble in the hearts of professors. 

Q. Has not God, in his providence, given us, in modern times, several interesting 
illustrations of this divine ordinance of covenanting? 

A. Yes. 1 . The existence of such federal deeds can be distinctly traced in the writings of 
Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others of the early Christian fathers. 2. During the 
dark ages, the testimony of the Waldenses and of the Bohemian brethren to the practice 
can be easily adduced. 3. In more modern times it is well ascertained to have prevailed in 
all the Reformed churches of the continent -in Germany, France, Switzerland, and the 
Netherlands (The league of Smalcalde, for example). 4. "The Pilgrim Fathers" employed 
this divine ordinance as a means of preserving the privileges of true religion among 
themselves, and of conveying them to their posterity. 5. But the examples in which we 
take the deepest interest., and in which we have the fullest embodiment of the principle in 
question, are those given in the British Isles; viz. The National Covenant of 
Scotland, and The solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms. 

Q. When and by whom was the National Covenant taken, and repeatedly renewed? 
A. 1. At Edinburgh, on the 28th of July, 1581, the National Covenant was sworn. The 
National Covenant was sworn to by King James VI and his privy council, and soon after 
received the sanction of the general assembly of the church. Being cheerfully taken and 
subscribed by persons of all ranks throughout the land, under the direction of the 
constituted authorities, both civil and religious, it amounted to a Solemn national 
surrender of the kingdom to the Lord. 2. Afterwards, in 1590, when the liberties of the 
church were threatened by both domestic and foreign invasions, this celebrated bond was 
ratified anew, under the direction of two commissions, the one consisting of 96 ministers, 
the other of 130 of the nobility and gentry, who were authorized to obtain subscriptions; 
and with such success was this business executed, under the good favour of God, that in 
two years thereafter, an act, ratifying the liberties of the church, and settling the 
Presbyterian church government in Scotland, was obtained from the king and parliament. 
3. This covenant, with some additional clauses, was sworn to with great unanimity and 
effect at the commencement of the second reformation, in 1638, "a step which was loudly 
called for by the insidious attempt then made to impose, by royal authority, the Book of 
Ecclesiastical Canons, and thus to blot out every vestige of the reformed religion and 
discipline from the land." 

Q. What was the substance of this interesting deed? 

A. This deed formally abjured all the corruptions of the Popish system; expressed 
unequivocal attachment to the Confession of Faith, which, indeed, it comprehended; and 
embodied a clause in which the covenanters called upon God to witness the sincerity of 
their hearts in the solemn transaction. 

Q. What was the occasion of the Solemn League and Covenant? 

A. It was occasioned by the struggle maintained by an arbitrary and Popishly affected 



court against the friends of reformation and liberty in the British Isles. 

Q. When was this celebrated deed prepared and taken? 

A. 1 . It was prepared by Alexander Henderson, received the approbation of the general 
assembly and the convention of estates, and was cordially subscribed by all persons of all 
ranks in Scotland, in the year 1643. 2. Having been deliberately examined by the 
venerable assembly of divines at Westminster, it was solemnly sworn in the church of St 
Margaret's Westminster by both houses of parliament, by the, assembly of divines, and 
by persons of different ranks generally throughout England. 3. In Ireland, too, it. was 
joyfully received by many of the Protestant population in the south, and by almost the 
whole body in the north; although, from the distracted state of things in that country, it 
could not possibly obtain the same legislative sanction as in the other two kingdoms. 4. 
This deed was formally and repeatedly ratified by parliament especially in 1644 and '49; 
and solemnly taken and subscribed by Charles II, both at Spey in 1650, and at Scoon in 
1651, however perfidiously dealt by afterwards on the part of that royal hypocrite and 
traitor. 

Q. What were the main objects of this famous deed? 

A. These were "the preservation of the reformed religion in Scotland, and the reformation 

of religion in England and Ireland, and the bringing of the churches in the three kingdoms 

to the nearest conformity, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government." The 

Covenanters bound themselves also to preserve the civil ruler's "just power and 

authority," in the preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the 

kingdom. 

Q. Is not, the second article of this instrument, in which it is said, " We shall endeavour 
the extirpation of Popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and 
whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness," 
chargeable with asserting persecuting principles? 

A. There is nothing here which savours of persecution. There are certainly various 
methods of rooting out errors besides the anti-Christian one of putting to death the 
persons who hold them. "The clause makes no mention of persons, but of principles, as 
the subjects of extirpation; and surely to use all lawful means of ridding the world of such 
false and abominable evils as are there enumerated was not only innocent but 
praiseworthy. The heresies, not the heretics, were what the Covenanters had in view in 
the article in question". 

Q. Were not the Covenants enforced by "civil pains? " 

A. This charge is founded upon the Act of Parliament, 1640, enjoining the subscription of 
the National Covenant. To this it is answered: 1. "This is no objection to the Covenants as 
such, but to those who, in an imprudent manner, undertook to promote their ends. 2. 
There is no evidence to prove that the subscription was not voluntary; but persons who 
had the best opportunities of knowing; have declared that 'no threatenings were used, 
except of the deserved judgments of God, and no force except the force of reason.' 3. 
Liberty to subscribe was withheld in the case of some, till there should be time to try their 



sincerity, and to prove that they acted from love to the cause, and not from the fear of 
maul. 4. Besides it ought to be borne in mind that these instruments have a civil, its well 
its religious object; and that, although the latter might not warrant the infliction of "civil 
pains," the same restrictions did not apply to the former, and they ought, in candour, to be 
judged of in this complex character in which they were framed, enacted, sworn, and pro- 
moted. 5. Moreover, there is good reason to think that all that this vexed and startling 
phrase in the act in question was ever intruded to provide for was, that the covenants 
should be employed as tests of qualification for office, or proof of the candidate's 
attachment to the Reformation. Exclusion from places of power and trust, it is believed, is 
all that can be proved ever to have been inflicted under this obnoxious act. The phrase, 
"under all civil pains, " when taken literally, and viewed by itself, may be deemed 
formidable looking enough, and calculated to call up, in the imaginations of the timid and 
the weak, the frightful ideas of fines, confiscations, imprisonments, executions, and 
similar "chimeras dire ;" but when fairly interpreted, by the light of history, it dwindles 
very innocently into-"«o seat in parliament. " 6. This is perfectly in conformity with the 
principle and practice of Israel's best king. Ps. lxxv. 10. "All the horns of the wicked also 
will I cut off; but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted" The horn is the symbol of 
civil power. David cut off the borne, but not the heads, of the wicked. He deprives them 
of civil authority, and conferred office upon the righteous only ; for " the wicked (was his 
experience) walk on every side when the vilest men are exalted?" And such is the 
doctrine of the covenanter. 

Q. Is it not a valid objection to these deeds that, they improperly blend civil and religious 

matters'! 

A. "The cause in which the covenanters were embarked, the enemies by whom they were 

opposed, and the dangers by which they were surrounded, were of both kinds. They were 

necessitated, therefore, to frame their measures with a view to the removal of evils, and 

the accomplishment of ends, both of a religions and political character; they had to have 

respect at once to the interests of the church, and those of the civil community" 

Q. Was not the taking of the covenants a most deliberate, solemn, and sublime 
transaction? 

A. Truly so. "Nothing could exceed the affecting solemnity with which the national 
covenant was renewed in 1638; the powerful and pertinent prayer of Henderson; the 
impressive speech of Loudon ; the reading of the document 'out of fair parchment' by 
Johnston; the death-like silence of the people that ensued; the sensation produced when 
the venerable earl of Sutherland stepped forward and appended his name first to the 
memorable deed; the rapidity with which it, afterwards circulated round the church to 
receive subscriptions; the eagerness with which they crowded round it, for the same 
purpose, when it was spread out like a prophet's roll on flat grave-stones in the church- 
yard ; the mingled expressions of joy and sorrow that rose from the crowd-joy at what the 
Lord had wrought, sorrow for personal and national sins; the shouts, the groans, the tears 
which succeeded ; and above all the forest of right hands simultaneously uplifted in awful 
appeal to the searcher of hearts! These all bespeak deliberation as well as determination. 
Well might Henderson exclaim, 'This was the day of the Lord's power, wherein he saw 
his people most willingly offer themselves in multitudes like the dew-drops of the 



morning.' The great day of Israel, wherein the arm of the Lord was revealed; the day of 
the Redeemer's strength, on which the princes of the people assembled to swear 
allegiance to the king of kings-great, great was the day of Jezreel." 

Q. Was not the influence of Chose covenants highly beneficial? 

A. Yes. God smiled on the work, and by the outpouring of his spirit gave the testimony of 
the divine approbation. Religion prospered, and the schemes of enemies were 
overthrown. 'Now,' said the Archbishop of St. Andrews, when he heard of the renovation 
of the national covenant, 'now all that we have been doing these thirty years past is 
thrown down at once.' 'The Lord,' says the author of the Fulfilling of the Scriptures, 'the 
Lord did let forth much of the spirit on his people when this nation did solemnly enter 
into covenant in the year 1638.' Many yet alive do know how their hearts were wrought 
on by the Lord. The ordinances were lively and longed after. Then did the nation own the 
Lord, and was visibly owned by him; much zeal and an enlarged heart did appear for the 
public cause; personal application was seriously set about; and then also was there a 
remarkable call of providence that did attend the actings of his people, which did astonish 
their adversaries, and forced many of them to feign subjection.' 'To what,' adds Paxton, 
'to what must our great and lasting prosperity be owing? We believe it has been greatly 
owing to the covenants of our fathers, to which a faithful and gracious God has hitherto 
had respect. It was not the ocean that surrounds us ; it was not the number and prowess of 
our fleets and armies, nor the wisdom of our councils (when invasion was threatened) but 
the sword of the Lord, and the buckler of his favour that saved us.' Thus has God 
conferred a Moral sublimity and wondrous prosperity upon the nations that bound 
themselves in these sacred bonds — covenants not to be forgotten. ' 

Q. Are not these covenants still obligatory upon the British Isles? 

A. Yes. "The matter of these covenants, we have seen, was lawful, scriptural, reasonable; 
the objects contemplated by them all will admit, have not yet been attained, namely, the 
complete reformation of these lands, the extirpation of every anti-Christian and false 
system, and uniformity in doctrine, discipline, and government throughout the three 
kingdoms. The parties also still contiuue-the eternal and uncchangeable God on the one 
hand, and the British nation on the other. Nations having a moral and even religious 
character, it must be admitted, are competent to enter into such solemn engagements; and 
those of which we speak were in every point of view national deeds ; they were framed 
and concluded by the representatives of the kingdom; they were taken by the call and 
authority of those in power; they were sworn in a public capacity; they were ratified and 
confirmed by public legislative acts; the public faith was plighted by all the organs 
through which a nation is accustomed to express its mind and will. Sanctions less sacred ; 
pledges less numerous and formal would have entitled another nation to demand from 
Britain the fulfilment of any treaty or contract; and shall not God who was not only a 
witness, but a party, nay, the principal party in these transactions, and whose honour and 
interests were immediately concerned, be regarded as having a claim to see that the 
stipulations are fulfilled?" "The identify of a nation" says the venerable biographer of 
two most distinguished covenanters, "the identity of a nation, as existing through 
different ages, is, in all moral respects, as real as the identity of an individual through the 
whole period of his life. The individuals that compose it, like the particles of matter in the 



human body, pass away, and are succeeded by others, but the body politic continues 
essentially the same. IF BRITAIN CONTRACTED A MORAL OBLIGATION IN 
VIRTUE OF A SOLEMN NATIONAL COVENANT FOR RELIGIOUS 
REFORMATION, THAT OBLIGATION MUST ATTACH TO HER UNTIL IT HAS 
BEEN DISCHARGED. Have the pledges given by the nation been yet redeemed? Do not 
the principal stipulations in the covenant remain unfulfilled at this day? Are we not a 
people still bound by that engagement to see these things done? Has the lapse of time 
cancelled the bond? Or will a change of sentiments and views set us free from its tie? Is it 
not the duty of all the friends of the reformation to endeavour to keep alive a sense of this 
obligation on the public mind? But although all ranks and classes in the nation should 
lose impressions of it, and although there should not be a single religious denomination, 
nor even a single individual in the land to remind them of it, will it not be held in 
remembrance by ONE, with which a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a 
thousand years ?" 

Q. Does not great guilt rest upon the British nation for its treatment of these covenants, 
and for the blood of the covenanters? 

A. Yes. A fearful weight of guilt. "It is matter of history, that after the restoration of 
Charles II., who himself had solemnly sworn these vows, acts were passed denouncing as 
treasonable and rebellious all the proceedings of the Second Reformation, rescinding all 
the public securities given during that period, stigmatizing the covenant as unlawful 
oaths, absolving men from their obligation, and declaring all laws passed in their favour 
to be null and void. It is also a well known fact, that under royal authority, the covenants 
were publicly burned by the hands or the common hangman, at London, in 1661, at 
Linlithgow the year following, and afterwards at Edinburgh. It is painful to be obliged to 
record, that, at the revolution in 1688, which extinguished the fires of persecution 
(consuming the adherents of the covenant), and put an end to the tyrannous rule of the 
Stuarts, nothing whatever was done, either by church or state, to make reparation for 
these atrocious indignities"-and the blood of the covenanters, which still stains the throne 
and nation. Now, when we consider that "one of the heaviest charges ever brought 
against the people of Israel was on this ground; they kept not the covenant of the Lord, 
and refused to walk in his law. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they 
steadfast in his covenant"-and the solemn declaration of the prophet of old, " I have been 
very jealous for the Lord of hosts, because the children of Israel have broken thy 
covenant.'' '-and God's own complaint, "The house of Israel, and the house of Judah, have 
broken my covenant which I made with their fathers"-how does it become the inhabitants 
of that covenant breaking land to ponder these words of Jehovah, If ye will not be 
reformed by me, but will walk contrary unto me; then will I walk contrary unto you, and 
will punish you yet seven times for your sins; AND I WILL BRING A SWORD UPON 
YOU THAT SHALL AVENGE THE QUARREL OF MY COVENANT. Wherefore hath 
the Lord done thus unto this land? What meaneth the heat of this great anger! Then shall 
men say, BECAUSE THEY HAVE FORSAKEN THE COVENANT OF THE, LORD 
GOD OF THEIR FATHERS. Lev. xxvi. 23-25; Deut. xxix. 24, 25. 

Q. May we not indulge the hope, that, in the goodness of our covenant God, and by the 
promised outpouring of his Holy Spirit, "the kingdoms of the world" at large, and the 



British empire in particular, will dedicate themselves to God in a covenant not to be 
forgotten-animated by the example of our covenant fathers exhibited in these memorable 
deeds? 

A. Yes. We have the most cheering grounds for this blessed hope; for it is written, that 
the nations at large in the spirit of devoted loyalty, shall cry-COME AND LET US JOIN 
OURSELVES TO THE LORD IN A PERPETUAL COVENANT, THAT SHALL NOT 
BE FORGOTTEN: and it cannot be well doubted, that the death-cry of the martyred 
Guthrie has been heard on high, and shall be venfied-THE COVENANTS, THE 
COVENANTS, SHALL YET BE SCOTLAND'S REVIVING. 



SECTION XII. 

On the Application of these Principles to the Governments, where 
Reformed Presbyterians reside, in the form of a Practical Testimony. 

Q. Under the government of what nations do Reformed Presbyterians reside? 

A. They reside within the jurisdiction of the governments of the United States and Great 

Britain. 

Q. Is the government of the United States, a government to which they yield allegiance, 
being in its constitution and administration the ordinance of God? 

A. They do not yield allegiance to the government of the United States, but claim and 
exercise the right of dissent from its constitution, as an instrument of government having 
no claims to the dignity of being the Ordinance of God; but as immoral, and hostile to the 
kingdom of Jesus Christ. 

Q. Upon what grounds do they state their dissent from the constitution of the United 
States? 

A. In their testimony entitled "Reformation Principles" they declare, "There are moral 
evils essential to the constitution of the United States, which render it necessary to refuse 
allegiance to the whole system. In this remarkable instrument there is contained no 
acknowledgment of the being or authority of God. There is no acknowledgment of the 
Christian religion, or professed submission to the kingdom of the Messiah. It gives 
support to the enemies of the Redeemer, and admits to its honours and emoluments, Jews, 
Mohametans, Deists, and Atheists. It establishes the system of robbery, by which men are 
held in slavery, despoiled of liberty, and property, and protection. It violates the 
principles of representation, by bestowing upon the domestic tyrant who holds hundreds 
of his fellow creatures in bondage all influence in making laws for freemen proportioned 
to the number of his own slaves. This constitution is, notwithstanding its numerous 
excellences, in many instances inconsistent, oppressive, and impious". Part I. p. 152. 

Q. Is it indeed true, that this famous Constitution does not recognise the being or 
authority of God, or the regal authority of Jesus Christ, "the prince of the kings of the 
earth?" 



A. It does not. If it did, the acknowledgment would be found in the preamble, which is as 
follows: --"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, 
establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the Common defence, promote 
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do 
ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." 

Q. Is there any recognition of the being and authority of God and his Christ in this part of 
this important instrument! 

A. There is evidently not. The supreme authority is evidently that only of WE THE 
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES; God and his Christ are not mentioned, nor the 
mediatorial supremacy recognised. 

Q. But is not the being and authority of God recognised in the oath of office required of 
the President of the United , State- in the words, " I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I 
will faithfully execute the office of President Of the United States," &c? 
A. Not necessarily of the True God. Because, 1. We learn from a member of the 
convention that framed the constitution, Luther MARTIN, delegate from Maryland, that 
the subject was debated in the convention, and the recognition refused. "The part of the 
system which requires that 'no religious test' shall ever be required as a qualification of 
any Office or public trust under the United States, was adopted by a great majority of the 
convention, and without much debate. However, there were some members so 
unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a deity and of a state of future 
rewards and punishments, would be some Security for the good conduct of our rulers, and 
that, in a Christian country it would be, at least, decent to hold out some distinction 
between the professors of Christianity, and downright infidelity and Paganism." - 
Genuine Information p. 87. From this information it appears that the president may be all 
Atheist, according to the constitution, and the oath of office is, therefore, not a 
recognition of the being of a God, as his name is not mentioned in the form of the oath, 
and it contains no appeal to Him. 2. The Heathen swore by their gods, but this was not a 
recognition OF GOD; nor is he pleased with such service. Jer. v. 7. " How shall I pardon 
thee for this? Thy children have forsaken me and sworn by them that are no gods. "3. As 
it was evidently intended that Atheists might hold office, by what God would they swear, 
who deity the existence of a Deity, and a future state of rewards and punishments" 

Q. Does not the constitution recognise the Christian religion, and express its subjection to 
the kingdom of the Messiah? 

A. It evidently does not. 1. From the above testimony of Luther Martin, that it was 
designed to hold out "no distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright 
infidelity and Paganism. " 2. From the 2d Sec. of Art. 6 in which it is declareed "This 
constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, 
and all TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United 
States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:' In the treaty with 
"TRIPOLI, Islam is declared to be as much the religion of this nation as Christianity. 
"The Government," says this "supreme law, " "of the United States IS NOT IN ANY 
SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. It has in itself no character of 
enmity against the laws or religion of Muslims. "-U. S. Laws, Vol. 4, Trip. Treat. Art. 2. 



Christianity-the laws of the Bible, are in no sense an element of the constitution. The 
supreme law is, the WILL of WE THE PEOPLE, expressed in the constitution, laws, and 
treaties with foreign powers. The nation, as such, is INFIDEL. Yea, it is a nation without 
a God. Is. Ix. 12. And the "justice " which they would " establish," is not that which is 
founded upon that attribute of God, but that only which the will of "we the people" shall 
determine to be justice. 

Q. Does the constitution give support to the enemies of the Redeemer, and admit to its 
honours and emoluments those who are adverse to his authority, religion, and laws, even 
Muslims, Deists and Atheists? 

A. This is manifestly so; as a supreme law declares it is not in any sense founded on the 
religion of the Bible, and refuses, as a qualification for office, that the office-bearer 
should believe in the existence of a Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments; 
as a consequence, infidels have occupied, and Atheists may occupy the highest seat in the 
gift oiwe the people. In contrast, the scriptures require, He that ruleth over men must be 
just RULING IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD. 

Q. IS the Constitution of the United States a pro-slavery instrument? 

A. Yes. It establishes that system of ROBBERY by which men are held in slavery, and 

despoiled of liberty and property. 

Q. Is not this view of that instrument zealously disputed, and is it not attempted to be 
proved a strongly Anti-slavery document? 

A. Yes. By a false and sophistical scheme of interpretation, an attempt is made to free the 
constitution from the guilt of being, in its true import, a slave-holding instrument. 

Q. What are the legitimate rules of interpretation, by the application of which, the true 
import of a disputed document may be correctly ascertained? 

A. The following are laid down by logicians and legitimate rules of interpretation. 1. 
"Whatever is obscure or doubtfill in a covenant should be interpreted by the intention of 
the parties. If the intention of the parties does not appear from the words of the covenant, 
it should be inferred from the existing customs and usages of the place, in which it was 
made. If the words of the Covenant contradict the well known intention of the parties, this 
intention must be regarded rather than the words. " 2. "When former interpreters are 
appealed to, in order to establish the sense of an ancient writing, those, caeteris paribus, 
should he preferred, who Were nearest the author, in time or place, as his children, 
pupils, correspondents, or countrymen; and who had, therefore, better advantages for 
knowing his mind than more distant commentators: -Hedges Logic, p. 16.07. By the 
application of these established rules of interpretation to the constitution, we will be able 
to ascertain its real character. 

Q. Does not the preamble to the constitution, in which it is stated that the object of the 
instrument is to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty to "we the people" 
and their "posterity," prove the anti-slavery character of 'the instrument? 
A. By no means. The import of the preamble depends upon the just meaning to be 
attached to the phrase "We the people, " which cannot be justly interpreted as signifying 



any other than the free inhabitants of the land at the time the constitution was penned. 

Q. Have you any proof that the slaves were not included in the phrase "We the people? " 
A. Yes. Conclusive proof. 1 . The people who ordained and established the constitution to 
Secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and posterity, were the same who were 
bound together by the feeble bonds of the old "articles of confederation," which expressly 
declare, Art. iv., Sec. 1, "That the FREE INHABITANTS shall be entitled to the 
immunities of free citizens in the several states." Therefore citizens of the several states 
were united by the ties of the confederation and these, finding those articles but " a rope 
of sand" to hold them together-and these only constitute WE THE PEOPLE, who 
ordained and established the constitution, to form a more perfect union, not with the 
slaves, but among themselves, as the free citizens; and to secure, not for the slaves, whom 
they then, and afterwards held in bondage, but for themselves and their posterity, as then 
free, the blessings of liberty. 2. Not a slave had A VOTE (the prerogative of freemen), or 
cast a vote in the election of delegates to the convention which framed the constitution. 
That they so voted must be proved before they can be embraced in the phrase we the 
people. 3. Not a slave had the privilege of voting, or cast a vote in the election of 
delegates to the thirteen state conventions that adopted the constitution as the expression 
of the sovereign will o/WE THE PEOPLE. This also must be proved in the affirmative, 
before the slaves can be included in the pompous phrase. 4. The inference is irresistible. 
That the free inhabitants of the land are we the people; and it is not a constitution to 
secure the liberties of the slave, but of the already free, whilst it rivets the Chains of the 
bondman. 5. When the constitution was ordained, and started on its career in the 
inauguration of Washington as the first president, the president himself was, at the time, 
a slaveholder and the groans and clanking of the chains of half million of slaves mingled 
with the notes of the trumpet, the roar of artillery, and the shouts of "We the people " on 
that stupendous occasion! What a splendid mockery of justice and liberty! 

Q. Have you any further proof of the pro-slavery character of this celebrated instrument? 
A. Yes. Abundant. The first I adduce is Art. i. Sec 2. "Representatives and direct taxation 
Shall he apportioned among the Several states, which may be included within this union, 
according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole 
number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and 
excluding Indians not taxed, three -fifths of all other persons. " 

Q. Upon what in this passage does the argument hinge? 

A. It hinges upon the just construction of the phrase, "three fifths of all other persons. " 

Q. Is it not a just construction of this clause to represent it as signifying women, aliens , 
paupers, the tenants of almshouses, vagrants, etc. ; for those who would evade its true 
import are not agreed upon a specific meaning? 

A. All these constructions are illegitimate. 1. Women, aliens, and paupers are free 
persons, and are embraced in the census of population. 2. The phrase is not in the least 
ambiguous. It is as plain as any circumlocution call be. Take it in connexion with its 
context, and the laws of philological construction compel us to adopt the term slaves as 
the only logical interpretation, and the true synonym of the phrase "all other persons:" for 



who are the opposite of "the whole number of free persons," but those who are not free, 
namely, SLAVES? This stands nearest in the opposition to free persons, and legitimate 
construction constrains us to adopt the term. 3. This has been the uniform construction 
since the constitution went into operation, and sustained by this clause the slave-holding 
states have twenty-five representatives in Congress, based upon their slave population, 
more than they would be entitled to upon the basis of their free population 

Q. Have you any respectable authority in proof of this interpretation of the disputed 
clause ? 

A. Yes; highly respectable. Bayard in his "Exposition of the Constitution" confirms this 
interpretation as the original intention of the clause. "In settling the ratio of 
representation, another difficulty arose, respecting the slaves who form so large a portion 
of the inhabitants of some of the states. To compute them among the numbers 
represented would be giving them an importance to which their character did not entitle 
them ; or, rather, would be introducing a representation of property, contrary to the 
general tenor of the constitution ; to omit them altogether in the computation would be to 
reduce the influence of the Southern States in a manner to which they would never 
consent. As a medium between these, it is agreed that five slaves should be accounted as 
three citizens, in arranging the representation, and the apportionment computed 
accordingly. "-P. 150. 

Q. Have you any additional proof that this was the design of the clause when enacted and 
adopted as the supreme law of the land? 

A. Yes. Luther Martin, a member of the convention that framed the constitution, and who 
therefore was fully possessed of its design, fully confirms the interpretation. "With 
respect to that part of the first article which relates to the apportionment of representation 
and direct taxation, there were considerable objections made to it, besides the great 
objection of inequality. It was urged that no principle could justify taking slaves into 
computation in apportioning the number of representatives a state should have in the 
government. That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power of a state in making 
laws for freemen in proportion its that state violated the rights of freedom". Slaves, then, 
were the persons designed by the phrase "three-fifths of all other persons." Thus the 
constitution " violates the principle of representation, by bestowing upon the domestic 
tyrant who holds hundreds of his fellow creatures in bondage, an influence in making 
laws for freemen proportioned to the number of his own slaves." 

Q. Was such the understanding of the STATE CONVENTIONS which adopted the 
constitution ? 

A. Yes. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate from New York to the convention that framed 
the constitution, and the only member from New York that signed it when completed, 
thus urges its adoption in the New York Convention: "The first thing objected to is the 
clause (three-fifths of all other persons) that allows a representation of three fifths of the 
negroes. Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of 
their own : whether that is reasoning or declamation. I will not presume to say. It is the 
unfortunate situation of the Southern States to have a great part of their population as 
well as property in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of the spirit of 



accommodation which governed the convention and without this indulgence no union 
could have been formed. But sir, considering some of the peculiar advantages which we 
derived from them, it is entirely just they should be gratified. The Southern Slates possess 
certain staples — tobacco, rice, indigo, &c, which must be Capital objects in treaties of 
commerce with foreign nations; and the advantages which they necessarily procure in 
these treaties will be felt throughout the United States. " Thus the spirit of compromise 
has erected SLAVERY a column to sustain the union of these states, and this column has 
for its impediment the United States Constitution ! Hamilton certainly understood the 
meaning and intention of the clause "all other persons." His interpretation is three fifths 
of the negroes! Yes commercial speculation drowned in the bosom, even of an 
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, the sense of justice, and he and his compatriots did not 
hesitate to barter liberty for gold, and to strengthen and cement the union by the bondage 
and blood of the negro! 

Q. Does not the venerable JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, contemporary with the framing, 
adoption, and administration of the constitution, confirm this interpretation? 
A. Yes, fully. In his report, in the House of representatives, on the Massachusetts 
resolution, he thus comments on this clause: " In outward show it is a representation of 
PERSONS IN BONDAGE; in fact it is a representation of their masters-the oppressor 
representing the oppressed. "- "Is it in the compass of human imagination to devise a 
more perfect exemplification of the act of committing the lamb to the tender custody of 
the wolf "-"The representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent, and trustee of the 
person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of his foes" — "If there be a parallel to 
it in human history, it can only be that of the Roman Emperors, who, from the days when 
Julius Caesar substituted a military despotism in the place of a republic, among the 
offices which they always concentrated upon themselves, was that of the tribune of the 
people. A Roman Emperor, Tribune of the people, is an exact parallel to that feature in 
the Constitution of the United States which MAKES THE MASTER THE 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SLAVE." In the light of these contemporaneous 
expositions, we cannot in the exercise of sound judgment for one moment hold the clause 
under consideration as in the least ambiguous, but so well defined, understood, and so 
fully practised upon, that, a power has been reared legitimately upon it which overtops all 
other powers, and threatens the enslaving or destruction of the union. "Its reciprocal 
operation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an artificial majority in the 
slave representation over that of the free people, in the American Congress, and thereby 
to make the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the VITAL AND 
ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL OOVERNMENT. 
--Adams 's Report. 

Q. May we not array one part of the instrument against the other, the good parts, for 
example, against the bad, for the nullification of the hater? 

A. By no means. It must be received as a whole and in all its parts. Neither can we 
separate the good from the bad-they are so interwoven that they must stand or fall 
together. We cannot construe it as wholly in favour of liberty; this would be to falsify the 
instrument. It is a compact in compromise with the slaveholder. He claims his part of the 
bond, and, if we sustain the instrument WE MUST YIELD HIM HIS POUND OF 



FLESH, DRAW BLOOD WHERE IT MAY. It is, moreover, fearfully consistent with 
itself, liberty for "the whole number of free people," bondage and degradation for "all 
other persons"— The WRETCHED NEGRO SLAVES. 

Q. What other proof have you of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution of the 
United States? 

A. A conclusive argument is found in Art. i., Sec. ix. "The migration or importation of 
such persons as any of the States now existing may think proper to admit, shall not be 
prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1 808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such 
importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person." 

Q. What evidence is there that slaves are intended by the phrase "such persons" in this 
remarkable clause? 

A There is abundant evidence which cannot be fully gainsaid, because fully exhibiting 
the original design of this degrading clause. 

Q. Are slaves, indeed, viewed as "persons" according'to the letter and spirit of this 
clause? 

A. American slavery, it is fully admitted, is all that the laws of the States declare it to be. 
The slave is "a chattel personal" in the hands of his owner; goods, a merchantable thing; 
yet, though marketable as a beast, and sold in the shambles as property, all this does not 
deny him to be a prisoner; not free and independent, yet "an individual human being 
consisting of soul and body," yea, "a man, woman, or child, as opposed to things, or 
distinct from them. " But a man, woman, or child, held as the property of another man, 
woman, or child, as the case may be. The slaveholder still views the slave as a human 
being, and will call it his MAN. POMP OR CUFFY, his BOY Harry, his WOMAN 
Dianna or his GIRL Milinda. Take two advertisements as an example: 1 . "FOR SALE — 
Dick Morgan, a very honest, trusty servant, has acted as a porter in a grocery store for 
several years, and SPEAKS French and English" 2. "Robert - possesses a first rate 
character in every respect". These slaves are considered as men skilled in various 
employments requiring intellect, "souls " so as to understand them; endowed with the gift 
of speech, and susceptible of moral culture, so as to be honest and to possess character. 
Now, who ever advertised a horse for sale as honest, a porter in a grocer store, and 
possessing a first rate character in all respects, and speaking the French and English 
languages? Negroes are viewed by slaveholders themselves as persons held as property. 
His personality is not destroyed, but his personal control as a "free person " is wrested 
and retained from him. He is considered a person as represented in Congress by his 
master; he is property as sold in the shambles: they are persons in the condition of 
slavery. 

Q. What is the testimony of Bayard as an expositor of the constitution, as it respects the 
fact that slaves are solely intended by this clause of that instrument? 

A. Bayard thus expounds the clause. Illustrating the limitation in the constitution of the 
powers of Congress, he remarks "The first exception of this kind is that by which 
Congress is forbidden to prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of 
the existing states should think proper to admit prior to the year 1808." The word 'slaves ' 



is never mentioned in the constitution; the same sensibility on that subject then, as now, 
in the southern portion of the Union; but some of the politicians of that day thought the 
introduction of that unfortunate class, essential to the prosperity, if not to the existence of 
the southern states; and therefore would not consent to allow Congress to exercise the 
right they would otherwise possess, under time general power of regulating commerce, to 
put an immediate end to this inhuman traffic. The result was a compromise by which the 
power of Congress was restricted for a limited period." 

This is the language of an expositor of the constitution, who I learn from his 
advertisement to the second edition of his commentary, from which I quote, received by 
letter approbation "Chief Justice Marshall, Judge Story, chancellor Kent, and other 
distinguished jurists. " Now, what is the construction ratified by these distinguished 
jurists? Simply, the clause relating to slaves, and slaves only; and manifestly authorizes 
and sanctions the inhuman traffic in slaves for 20 years. This is obvious upon the least 
consideration. Without this clause Congress had and would have exercised the right to 
put an end to the African slave trade, as far as this country was concerned. But the WILL 
of we the sovereign PEOPLE expressed in the constitution restrained Congress in the 
execution of this noble deed for 20 years. Therefore the will of "we the people" expressed 
in the constitution SANCTIONED the FOREIGN SLAVE TRADE during that period. If 
they prevented its destruction by their will, which otherwise could or would have taken 
place, their will sustained the barbarous traffic. 

Q. What is the testimony of Luther MARTIN upon this point? 

A. His testimony upon this clause, as a member of the convention that framed the 
constitution, is as follows: "the design of this clause is to PREVENT THE GENERAL 
GOVERNMENT FROM PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES but the 
same reasons which induced them to strike out the word 'national,' and not admit the 
word 'Stamps,' influenced them here to guard against the word 'slaves'. They anxiously 
sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might seem odious in the ears of 
Americans; although they were willing to admit into their system THOSE THINGS 
which the expressions signified." 

Q. What is the history of the celebrated compromise upon the subject of slavery, between 
the Northern and Southern States, which was adopted in the convention that framed the 
constitution? 

A. Luther MARTIN gives the history of that odious transaction in the following words: 
"The clause," the one under consideration, "was the subject of great diversity of 
sentiment in the convention; as the system was reported by the committee of detail the 
provision was general, that such importation SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED without 
confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight states — Georgia, South 
Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina voting for it. " 

'We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those states, that their 
states would never agree to a system which put it in the power of the general government 
TO PREVENT THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES, and that they, as delegates from 
those states, must withhold their assent form such a system. " 

"A committee of one member from each state was chosen by ballot, to take this 
part of the system under consideration, and to endeavour to agree upon some report, 



which would RECONCILE those states. This committee, of which I also had the honour 
to be a member, met and took under their consideration the subject committed to them. I 
found the Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, were willing to 
indulge the Southern Staten, at least with a temporary liberty, to prosecute the slave- 
trade, provided the Southern States would gratify them in laying no restriction upon 
Navigation Acts; and after a very little time the committee, by a great majority agreed on 
a report by which the general government was to BE PROHIBITED FROM 
PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF SALVES FOR A LIMITED PERIOD, and the 
restrictive clause to navigation acts was to be omitted. This report was adopted by a 
majority of the convention." 

Q. What is the point of this testimony of LUTHER MARTIN ? 

A. The point is this. That most infamous traffic, the slave-trade, was guaranteed by the 

constitution of the general government from 1787 until 1808, a period of more than 20 

years. This was the direct and special design of this clause. In vain do men assert "it is a 

mere prohibitory clause, it authorises nothing." What, if I by all oral, and especially by a 

written expression, of my will, prevent the prohibition of a certain practice, do I not 

thereby SANCTION that evil practice, and doubly so when by so doing I annul 

a right possessed by my agent to prohibit that practice? No man can rid himself of this 

conclusion. 

The United States, government had the grant of the power to regulate the entire 
commerce of the Union already conferred upon the congress, by which Congress would 
have had the right to abolish the slave-trade. This was torn from the hand of Congress by 
the nefarious deed, the compromise, enacted, as the will of "we the people" in this clause. 
Citizens of the United States, look at your own deed recorded in your national 
Constitution! "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 'ORDAINED' AND 
ESTABLISHED AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AND SUPREME LAW, THE 
PREVENTION OF THE PROHIBITION OR EVEN RESTRICTION OF THE MOST 
INFAMOUS TRAFFIC THAT EVER DISGRACED THE WORLD, THE AFRICAN 
SLAVE-TRADE, AND THEREBY GAVE THE SANCTION OF OUR HIGH 
AUTHORITY TO ROBBERY AND PIRACY FOR 20 YEARS!" 

Q. What is the testimony of the venerable James Madison as to the meaning of this 
Clause? 

A. James Madison, Fourth President of the United States, and Member of the Convention 
that framed the Constitution testifies in the debates in the Virginia Convention but 
adopted it-thus testifies to its true import. "The Southern States" (says Mr. M. upon this 
clause) would not have entered into the Union of America without the temporary 
permission of that trade (the slave-trade). The gentlemen from South Carolina and 
Georgia argued in this manner: "We have now liberty to import this species of property, 
and much of the property now possessed, has been purchased or otherwise acquired in 
contemplation of improving it BY THE ASSISTANCE OF IMPORTED SLAVES. What 
would be, the consequences of hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in 
value and we should be obliged to go to your market. " Was there ever wickedness like 
this! To gratify the cupidity of a few Southern planters, a nation stoops to decree the 
"mischief of the slave-trade, by a national Constitutional "law." To grant "the temporary 



permission of that trade." In vain will men reiterate the cry that the word "slave" is not in 
the Constitution, and therefore it is innocent of the guilt of slavery. The thing is there. 
The eyes of Omniscience are not blinded by the specious drapery of style with which 
crafty men may seek to disguise 'iniquity' in their recorded deeds. Yea, the veil is too 
thin to hide this iniquity from the eyes of the righteous man, when he opens his eyes upon 
it. He sees with the eloquent coloured man, that 'slavery was in the understanding that 
framed the Constitution. Slavery is in the will that executes it. '" 

Q. Does not the Act of Congress, 1808, enacted for the abolition of the slave trade, 
according to this clause, prove clearly that slaves only were meant by it? 
A. Most conclusively. It was enacted to abolish the slave trade, which had been 
temporarily permitted by this clause of the constitution, and could not be restrained or 
prohibited until 1 808, and which was, until this date, under the protection of the United 
States flag, in virtue of this guarantee of the constitution prosecuted with the utmost 
vigor; and thousands of African slaves were imported, and many of them, with their 
descendents still groan in bondage, the chains of which have been riveted by the U. S. 
constitution. 

Q. Is there any other proof that the constitution sanctions slavery? 

A. Yes. I adduce as another conclusive argument, Art. 4, sec. 2, 3: "No person held to 

service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in 

consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour; 

but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be 

due." 

Q. Are slaves the "persons" here intended? 

A. Yes. The slave, it has been already Clearly shown, is esteemed both as "a person" and 
property; a person, when he can advance the dignity and augment the power of is master; 
property, when he can be subservient to the insatiable cupidity of his owner. 

Q. Does the term "service " in this clause cover the office of slaves? 

A. Yes. -The first meaning of service is "menial office." "Menial" signifies "belonging to 
the train of servants." Now, the term "servants" is a familiar term by which Southern men 
designate their slaves. They are sensitive, as Bayard declares, to the word "slave, " and 
hence avoided the use of the term in the constitution. Ill proof that "xerrpurtls, " in 
Southern states, mean "slaves ; " that these are there convertible terms, take the following 
advertisement: -"Valuable SERVANTS FOR SALE at auction, by Isaac L.McCoY. This 
day, Thursday, 27th instant, at 12 o'clock, at the Exchange Coffee House, will be SOLD, 
34 valuable SERVANTS."-(Anti-S. Alan., p. 102.) Now, the term service expresses the 
MENIAL office of a train servants; which whole train, amounting to 34, or any number, 
may he sold at auction, in the shambles of the South, as valuable servants. The clause 
contemplates, then, the "service " of Southern servants, or slaves. 

Q. In what sense is the term "due " to be taken in this clause? 

A. Every person, it is presumed, of the least legal intelligence, is familiar with the 

distinction between a claim in equity or a just claim, and a claim in law or a legal claim. 



No slaveholder can have a just claim to his slave, and his service, as his property, in a 
court of equity; but the law of the Southern states makes men slaves, and the will of the 
people contemplates in this clause the legal claim o/the master, and determines to secure 
him the service of his, runaway slave, DUE to him in love, by compelling the delivering 
him up upon the claim of the master, when captured in a free state, to which he had 
escaped, as he supposed, as to a place of refuge. 

Q. Can any person be held to service or labour, but a slave? 

A. No. No contract service is compellable of performance. No contract compels a man to 
perform his promised service. The law holds him only in damages. Nobody is held to 
service under any contract he can make. If he does not perform what he promises, he is 
held to pay only; and not to be held then to the creditor. The creditor cannot hold him to 
pay. He has to ask the law to. He is not "held to service" to anybody. To "hold him to 
service" would itself make him a slave. The clause, therefore, means "slaves" only. 

Q. Does not the phrase, "held under the laws, " prove the same point that slaves only are 
meant by the clause? 

A. Very clearly. The constitution contemplates a class held to service in a state under the 
laws thereof, " and says further, what it would not say of any persons but slaves, or 
any service but slave, service, that escaping from it into another state shall not discharge 
the person from it by virtue of any laws in that state. There is no service a person is 
holden to in any state under the laws thereof from which the laws of any other state 
would discharge him, generally, but slave service. We have slave states and non-slave 
states, but not pay states and non-pay states, contract states and non-contract states. The 
obligations of contract in one state are obligations on the debtor in all other states. But the 
constitution says there is a service under the laws of one state from which the laws of 
another state will discharge a person if he runs there. This service is no other than 
slave service; is that or none. 

Q. Is any person liable by law to be delivered up to claimant but a Slave? 
A. No. No person is liable by law to be delivered up to a claimant but a slave; but the 
constitution speaks of delivering up to the claimant the person who owes the service by 
the laws of the slave states, but not by the laws of other states. Such a person must then 
be a slave. This can only be spoken of slaves, and anybody of whom it call be spoken, is 
a slave. If the constitution means anybody but the negroe slaves, then it regards as slaves 
the white folks of this country. It is an enslaving instrument. 

Q. Does not the law of Congress, 1703, illustrate this clause of the constitution, and prove 
that slaves only are meant? 

A. Yes; conclusively. We quote the third section of the law, that this clause of the 
constitution and it may be compared: "And be it further enacted that when a person 
held to service for labour in any of the United States, or in any of the territories on the 
north-west or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other 
of the said states or territories, the person to whom such labour or service may be due, his 
agent or attorney is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, and to 
take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, 



residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a county, city or town 
corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made and upon proof to the satisfaction 
of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit, taken before, certified 
by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested, doth, 
under the laws of the state or territory, from which he or she fled, owe service or labour 
to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give 
a certificate thereof to such a claimant, his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient 
warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour to the state or territory from which he 
or she fled." All admit this law to be a slave-catching law, and nothing else. Yet the word 
slave is not in it, but its phraseology describing the persons designed in it, is the exact 
phraseology of the clause in the constitution. If the one is slave-catching, so is the other; 
for the slave-catching law is the legitimate offspring of the enactment in the constitution; 
and the only design of the law was to arrest and carry back into bondage the fugitive, and 
for this purpose only has it been administered ever since its enactment. The 
constitutionality of this, law has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the late case of Puff vs. Pennsylvania, and from this decision there is no appeal. It 
must abide THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. 

Q. What proof have you that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is 
final in this and similar matters, and that from its decision there is NO APPEAL? 
A. Bayard, in his exposition of the constitution, thus declares the jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court. "The judicial power of the Union is declared to extend to all cases in law 
and equity arising under the constitution (Const. Art. iii. sea 2, 1), and to the judicial 
power it belongs whenever a case is presented before it, to determine what is the supreme 
law of the land. And this power, in the last resort, is vested by the constitution in the 
Supreme Court of the United Slates. And its decision must be final and conclusive; 
because the constitution gives to that tribunal, power to decide, and has given, no appeal 
from its decision: '-P. 122. 

Q. What is the decision of this ultimate tribunal relative to the import and original design 
of this clause of the constitution respecting fugitives from service ? 

A. Its decision demonstrates the pro-slavery character of the clause, and is as follows: In 
one of the decisions Judge STORY said, "Historically it is well known that the object of 
this clause was to secure to the citizens of the slave-holding states THE COMPLETE 
RIGHT AND TITLE OF OWNERSHIP IN THEIR SLAVES AS PROPERTY, IN 
EVERY STATE OF THE UNION into which they might escape from the state wherein 
they were held in servitude." "The full recognition of this right and title was 
indispensable to the security of this species of property, in all the slave-holding states, 
and, indeed, was so vital to the preservation of their interests and institutions, that it 
cannot be doubted that it constitutes a fundamental article, without the adoption of which 
the Union would not have been formed. Its true design was to guard against the doctrines 
and principles prevalent in the non-slaveholding states, by preventing them from 
intermeddling with, or restricting, or abolishing the rights of owners of slaves. " 
Again. "The clause was therefore of the last importance to the safety and security of the 
Southern states, and could not be surrendered by them without endangering their whole 
property in slaves. The clause was therefore adopted in the constitution by the unanimous 



consent of the framers of it. A proof at once of its intrinsic and practical necessity." 
Again. " The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive unqualified right 
on, the part of the owner of the slave, which no state law or regulation can in any way 
regulate, control, or restrain. " 

JUDGE BALDWIN, in charging the jury, said, "If there are any rights of property 
which can be enforced-if one citizen have any rights of property which are inviolable 
UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE SUPREME LAW OF THE STATE AND THE 
UNION, they are these which have been set at naught by some of these defendants. As 
the owner of property which he had a perfect right to possess, protect, and take away, as a 
citizen of a sister state, entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of any 
other state-Mr. Johnson stands before you on ground which cannot be taken from under 
him; it is the same ground upon which the government itself is based. If the defendants 
can be justified, we have no longer law or government. " Again, after referring more 
particularly to the provision for delivering up fugitive slaves, he Said, " Thus you see that 
the foundations o* the government are laid and rest on the right of property in slaves. 
THE WHOLE STRUCTURE MUST FALL BY DISTURBING THE CORNER- 
STONE." Thus slavery is a CORNER-STONE of the government— a column in the temple 
of liberty! 

Q. How does Bayard interpret this clause? 

A. "This provision," says Bayard, "relates to that class of men who are held in bondage 
in some of the States, and are sometimes tempted to escape into the non-slaveholding 
states, in the hope of regaining their freedom by that means. These states might be 
induced, by views of humanity, or other motives, to shelter the fugitives and throw 
obstacles in the way of their recovery. This, if allowed, would be a constant source of 
dissension between the states, and might lead to the most serious consequences. The 
holding of slaves is a domestic concern with which other states ought not to interfere, and 
as long as it is permitted in any of the states, the peace of the country requires that the 
rights of the masters should be respected. This, therefore, is a wise provision. Without it, 
the Southern states would, probably, not have consented to the union." 

Q. What is the opinion of James Madison, who, of all men, had the best opportunity to 
know, as to the legitimate construction of this clause? 

A. Thus this celebrated man delivered his opinion upon this clause in the Virginia 
convention for the adoption of the constitution: "Another clause secures us that property 
which we now possess. At present (under the old confederacy) if any slave elopes to those 
states where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws; for the laws of the 
states are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this constitution ' no person 
held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any 
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be 
delivered up on claim of the party to which such service or labour may be due. ' THIS 
CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE OWNERS OF SLAVES TO 
RECLAIM THEM. This is a better security than any that now exists. " Thus plainly 
speaks a member of the Convention that framed the constitution, and by whose 
arguments in its illustration, the Virginia convention is influenced to adopt it. 



Q. What says General Randolph as to its true meaning? 

A. He thus briefly delivers his opinion as a member both of the United States and 
Virginia conventions. "Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labour; and 
when authority is given to vindicate their property can they (the owners of slaves) be 
deprived of it?" 

Q. Does not this clause, therefore, sanction, by all the force of the supreme law, the 
odious sin of slavery? 

A. Of this there can be no doubt in the impartial mind. The clause was: "Expressly 
inserted" to give a power not before possessed to owners of slaves TO RECLAIM 
THEM-to "give them authority to vindicate their property. " This is full sanction of 
slavery-the strongest ratification of the alleged rights of the master. Ah! I go not to the 
panders of immoral power and the worshippers of an idol for a just answer to the inquiry- 
Is not this sanction? But go to the slave — go to yonder weeping one, who thought he had 
escaped to a city of refuge, but by the authority of this clause of the United States 
constitution is now seized, reclaimed, rebound, to be dragged back to the land of chains, 
and whips, and horrid gashes in the flesh, and iron yokes with spikes, applied in the 
"tender mercy" of that personification of the dignity of human nature, the overseer! Ask 
this wretched being as he writhes under the torture inflicted because he dared to assert his 
rights in the attempt to regain his liberty, ask him if this is sanction? — and raising his 
manacled hands to heaven, in the agony of a bursting heart, he will exclaim- YES, this is 
sanction, I FEEL IT TO BE SANCTION! 

Q. Is not the fugitive slave law of 1850, a further illustration of this pro-slavery clause of 

the Constitution? 

A. Yes. An ample and fearful illustration. 

Q. What is its substance? 

A. Its Substance is in a principal clause contained in Sec. 4. This clause makes it the duty 
of the commissioners, appointed by the act to adjudicate in the matter, "to grant 
certificates to such claimants upon Satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take 
and remove such fugitive from service or labour, under the restrictions herein contained, 
to the state or territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled." It is a fearful 
restoration of the peremptory injunction of the constitution-the /wg/ft've shall be delivered 
up upon claim of the party to whom such service or labour is due. 

Q. Have you any additional evidence of the sanction of slavery by the constitution of the 
United States? 

A. I have-and adduce Art. iv, sec. 4th; and Art, i. sec. 8 . By the former, "every state in 
this Union is guaranteed protection by the United States, 'against domestic violence. " ' 
By the latter, "Congress is empowered 'to provide for calling forth the militia to execute 
the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrection and repel invasions!" These provisions, 
however strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white population, 
were adopted with reference to the slave population, for the purpose of keeping them in 
subjection by the combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and 
the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile insurrection would ere 



long be the consequence, as general, as it would be unquestionably successful. 

Q. What evidence have you of the correctness of this interpretation of these clauses? 
A. 1. James Madison: He says, respecting these clauses, "On application of the 
legislature or executive, as the case may be, the militia of the other states are to be called 
to suppress domestic insurrections. Does this bar the states from calling forth their own 
militia? No, but it gives supplementary security to suppress insurrections and domestic 
violence. " 2. In answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the constitution in 
the Virginian convention that there was no power left to the states to quell an insurrection 
of slaves, for it was wholly invested in Congress, GEORGE NICHOLAS asked, "Have 
they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away? If it does, it must be in one 
of these clauses which have been mentioned by the worthy member. The first gives the 
general government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take away from the 
states? No. But it gives additional security; for besides the power in the state government 
to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the general government TO AID THEM 
WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION WHEN CALLED FOR." 3. LUTHER 
MARTIN testifies to the same point. "It was further urged (in argument against the pro- 
slavery features of the constitution), that by this system of government, every state was to 
be protected both from foreign invasions, and domestic insurrections; that from this 
consideration it was of the utmost importance it should have a power to restrain the 
importation of slaves, since in proportion as the number of slaves were increased in any 
state, in the same proportion the state is weakened, and exposed to foreign invasion and 
domestic insurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either; 
and therefore will by so much the more be a burden to the union. " 

Q. Has not this view of these clauses been exemplified — and is it not demonstrated that 
they are the stronghold of slavery? 

A. Yes. This solemn guarantee of security to the slave system, caps the climax of national 
barbarity, and stains with human blood the garments of all the people. In consequence of 
it, that system has multiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three 
millions — a vast amount of new territory has been purchased in order to give it extension 
and perpetuity-several new slave states have been admitted to the union -the slave trade 
has been made one of the articles of commerce — the slave population, though over 
worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to every form of deprivation, 
and every species of torture, have been overawed and crushed; or, whenever they have 
attempted to gain their liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the 
strong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case of Nat Turner's 
insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military forces of the government were 
called into active service. Cuban bloodhounds have been purchased with the money of 
the people, and imported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades of 
Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermination and expulsion of the 
Florida Indians, because they gave succour to these poor hunted fugitives-a warfare 
which has cost the nation several thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars-and the late 
war with Mexico was waged, unquestionably, to extend the area of slavery. 

Q. Have you any additional argument demonstrating the national sanction of slavery? 



A. Yes. I adduce Art. i. sec. 8, clause 8. "Congress shall have power to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." 
Bayard, on the Constitution, says, "The exclusive regulation of commerce with foreign 
nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes, is also confided to Con- 
gress. This was obviously proper, as the management of all concerns with foreign 
nations, and a general superintendence over domestic affairs, constitute the peculiar 
province of the national government, and were the principal objects of its establishment, " 
p. 49. Slaves are an article of commerce among different states. The domestic slave trade 
is therefore under the general superintendence of the national government. It regulates 
this part of domestic affairs as its "peculiar province. " The domestic slave-trader is 
protected in this "infamous traffic" by "the stripes and stars". The stars of freedom shine 
with a benignant lustre upon the domestic slave-ship, as she ploughs the ocean with her 
burden of woe; but they emit no ray of gladness to cheer the bosom of the helpless 
tenants of her hold. 

Q. Has not Congress the right to abolish the domestic slave trade? 

A. This is exceedingly doubtful. Mr. Madison says, "No power is given to the general 
government to interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the states." 
The constitution views the slave as property, as proved above, and authorizes the 
slaveholder to vindicate his property-in a free State. Now all property may be sold, and 
therefore become an article of commerce. It would seem a just conclusion, that the 
slaveholding states have a constitutional right to traffic in slave property among 
themselves — the inter-state slave trade is constitutional-and Congress, whilst it has a right 
to regulate, would seem to have no right, without the consent of the slaveholding state, to 
abolish this nefarious and inhuman traffic. 

Q. Does not the amendment to the constitution, which is in these words, "Nor shall any 
person be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," prove the 
constitution to be an anti-slavery instrument? 

A. By no means. The only one of these three possession which the slave can at all be said 
to possess, is life; yet, his living energies are his master's. If he forfeits his life-and in the 
slave states in more than 70 ways he may do so-he has always, until Judge Lynch erected 
his tribunal, been deprived thereof by " due process of law." But liberty and property he 
legally possess not. "He can possess nothing, nor acquire anything, " says the slave code, 
" but what must belong to his master. " This was his condition when this amendment was 
enacted, and has been his condition ever since. It was never enacted for him. How will 
you undertake to deprive a man of that of which he is not possessed? The slave has 
neither liberty nor property, and you cannot deprive him of either by "due process of 
law," or otherwise. How common sense breaks the meshes of the web of subtleties? 

Q. Is not this provision of the constitution, compelling the delivering up of the fugitive 

slave to his master, from whose tyranny he had escaped, a direct violation of the law of 

God? 

A. Yes. It is a direct violation, Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master 

the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee : he shall dwell with thee, even 

among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him 



best: thou shalt not oppress him." 

Q. What action has the Reformed Presbyterian Church taken upon American slavery? 
A. She has made it a term of communion. Her decision is, "No slaveholder is admitted 
into her communion." Test, part i. P. 155. The resolution of the committee of presbytery 
sent to the South to purge the church of this evil, is in the following terms: "Resolved, 
That enslaving these our African brethren is an evil of enormous magnitude; and no one 
who continues in so gross a departure from humanity and the dictates of our benevolent 
religion, can have any claim to communion in this church." 

The following note was sent to each individual implicated in this enormous evil. "Sir : 
You are hereby informed that none can have communion in this church who hold slaves. 
You must therefore immediately have it registered legally that your slaves are freed, 
before the ensuing sacrament. If any difficulty arises to you in the manner of doing it, 
then you are desired to apply to the committee of Presbytery, who will give directions in 
any circumstances of a doubtful nature in which you may be involved in carrying this in- 
junction into execution." 

In her Testimony, part ii. pp. 119 and 152, she emphatically denies " That a 
constitution of government which deprives unoffending men of liberty and property, is a 
moral institution to be recognised as God's ordinance;" and declines allegiance to the 
United States Government, because ' It establishes that system of robbery by which men 
are held in slavery, despoiled of liberty, and property, and protection. It violates the 
principle of representation, by bestowing upon the domestic tyrant who holds hundreds of 
his fellow creatures in bondage, an influence in- making laws for freemen proportioned to 
the number of his own slaves". 

Q. Will not God "judge and avenge" the blood of the slave upon such a nation as this? 
A. As God is just he will: what he did to the oppressors of old he will do now. "Thus 
saith the Lord: even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the 
terrible be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will 
save thy children, and I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh ; and they 
shall be drunken with their own blood as with sweet wine, and all flesh shall know that I 
am the Lord thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob." "Arise, O Lord, 
for the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, and set him in safety from 
him that presseth at him." "Arise, oh sovereign Judge of the nations, judge the fatherless 
and the OPPRESSED, THAT THE MEN OF THE EARTH MAY NO MORE 
OPPRESS." 

Q. Is there not some evidence in the Signs of the times that God is now judging this 
nation, and will ere long deluge it with blood? 

A. Yes. The signs of the times indicate that the prophecy of John Quincy Adams may 
soon be fulfilled. " The delegates," said that distinguished man, "of the free states (in the 
national convention), in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendancy of the 
Southern slaveholders, did listen to a compromise between right and wrong-between 
freedom and slavery, of the ultimate fruits of which they had no conception, but which 
already, even now, is urging the Union to its inevitable ruin and depopulation, by a cavil, 
servile, foreign and Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential issue of which 



will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the unhallowed standard of slavery 
will be the desecrated banner of the North American Union -that banner first unfurled to 
the breeze inscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence." 



APPLICATION OF THE TESTIMONY TO THE BRITISH EMPIRE. 

Q. What is the present position of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the British Isles, 
in relation to the civil institutions of those kingdoms? 

A. It is that of avowed dissent, and of faithful testimony against the immoralities in the 
civil constitutions of those kingdoms. 

Q. Upon what ground did the Steadfast band of witnesses for the covenanted reformation 
in Scotland, adopt the position of dissent from the civil government of these lands, as 
well as from the churches which were at once established and corrupted by it? 
A. The extreme tyranny of the government then in existence was only one of the grounds 
on which they rested that dissent. They further complained, that the government was 
erected on the ruins of a scriptural reformation, to the preservation of which these nations 
were solemnly bound: that the ecclesiastical were the mere creatures of the State; and 
that the principles and the policy of the great Romish apostasy were so conspicuous in the 
constitution and administration of both church and state, as to stamp the whole with the 
character of Antichrist. 

Q. Wore matters altered much for the better at the memorable revolution? 
A. At the revolution, these nations adopted and acted upon the views of the covenanters 
in regard to the first ground of complaint only. The tyrannical government was 
indignantly overthrown, and one of a much more equitable and moderate character was 
substituted in its stead. But while the public spirit and energy of the nations were dis- 
played in shaking off the yoke of oppression, and in asserting their own rights, no 
effectual attempt was made to vindicate the rights of the Redeemer. The covenanters 
were not ungrateful for the large increase of liberty and privilege secured to them by the 
revolution; but they could not accede to an arrangement, however beneficial to 
themselves, of which these were made essential conditions: That the crown rights of the 
Messiah should be compromised, and the antichristian corruptions interwoven with the 
constitution, both of church and state, should remain undisturbed. 

Q. What is the first specific exception which Reformed Presbyterians in Britain take to 
the British constitution? 

A. In their own language, they explicitly state as their first objection to the British 
constitution, That there is no direct or explicit acknowledgment of the supreme authority 
of the scriptures in the constitution and administration of civil government in these lands. 
In the actual administration of the government of these kingdoms, it seems to us that this 
principle has been practically disregarded. It does not appear that the responsibility of 
nations to the moral governor of the world is fully understood or felt. No strenuous 
attempt has heretofore been made, by almost any class of society, to select men 
possessing scriptural qualifications to occupy the halls of legislature, or to fill public 



offices; and it has rarely occurred, we believe, that any course of policy has been 
abandoned, merely because it was condemned in the word of God. Here we rest our first 
complaint, that the authority of Jehovah is virtually set aside, while the homage and 
allegiance of the nations have been tendered to the great idol of POLITICAL 
EXPEDIENCY. 

Q. What is their second ground of dissent? 

A. At no period, say they, since the revolution, have these nations and their rulers 
formally acquiesced in the divine decree which has invested the exalted Messiah with the 
government of the nations: "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges 
of the earth ; serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be 
angry, and ye perish from the way". We know of nothing, either in the deeds of 
constitution, or in the administration of the government of these kingdoms, which can 
justly be regarded as a proper acquiescence in this authoritative appointment. There is no 
formal recognition of the supremacy of Christ, as Mediator, over the nations ; no 
acknowledgment of those vows of allegiance that were formerly pledged to him in the 
period of the Reformation; no care employed to make the interest of his kingdom the 
primary object of concern. The favour that has been extended to churches in these lands 
has been manifestly vicious in its principle, and has tended to corrupt these churches, 
rather than to advance the cause of religion. 

Q. What is the third ground of this dissent? 

A. With these evils may be conjoined the open and arrogant invasion of Christ's 
supremacy over his church. He has solemnly commanded his disciples to own no other 
master. He claims the exclusive right of prescribing a government and laws to his church; 
and there is not a single hint in the sacred volume of his having appointed an 
ecclesiastical viceroy to whom he has delegated his own authority. The usurpation of 
such a dominion constitutes one of the highest charges against the Man of Sin. Yet 
according to the statute laws of the empire, an Erastian supremacy over the churches of 
England and Ireland is held to be an essential right of the British crown. 

Q. What evidence is there of this unhallowed claim? 

A. "The king," says Blackstone, and of course the queen, too, "is considered by the laws 
of England as the head, and supreme governor of the national church." The Papal 
jurisdiction in England was destroyed by Parliament upon the express ground that "the 
king's majesty justly and rightly is, and ought to be, supreme head of the church of 
England." The first of Elizabeth enacts that, "all jurisdictions, spiritual and ecclesiastical, 
should for ever be united to the imperial crown." And in her 37th Article, the church 
endorses the impious claim. It runs thus: "The king's majesty hath the chief power in this 
realm of England, unto whom the chief government of all the estates of this realm, 
whether they be ecclesiastical or Civil, IN ALL CAUSES, doth appertain. " Thus do both 
church and state agree in declaring it to be a fundamental principle of the constitution, 
that the king or queen is supreme head in all causes civil and ecclesiastical. A more 
grossly unscriptural element, therefore, has been introduced into the church of England 
than is to be found in that of Rome. In the fearful impiety in making a sinful mortal head 
of the church, indeed, both have concurred; but then the head of the church of Rome must 



be an ecclesiastic, and a man-female popes are not esteemed quite canonical-whereas the 
head of the church of England is a lay or civil person ; and may be a man, a women, or a 
child ! ! ! Her erastianism, therefore, is emblazoned on her very forehead. 

Q. Has a copious stream of erastian encroachment flowed from this polluted fountain of 
royal supremacy? 

A. Yes. Her clergy, for instance, have all their authority to rule and, ordain from the 
sovereign. In 37 Henry VIII. cap. 17, it is declared, that "archbishops, bishops, 
archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical persons, have no manner of jurisdiction 
ecclesiastical, but by, under, and from his royal majesty ; and that his majesty is the only 
supreme head of the church of England and Ireland." Words could not more explicitly 
declare that instead of having their authority from the Lord Jesus Christ, these dignitaries 
derive it immediately from a poor erring mortal. Hence, also, the clergy cannot meet in 
convocation, or enact anything, or perform any act of ecclesiastical discipline, without 
her majesty's authority and permission; and the appointment of all bishops belongs to the 
sovereign, &c, &c. 

Q. Does the power of the state to model and remodel, to overturn and reconstruct the 
church at pleasure, to decree rites and ceremonies in her, to form canons for the regula- 
tion of her government, to select the persons who shall fill all her most important offices, 
and even to determine her confession and creed, therefore remain undisputable? 
A. Yes. All this is evident from the above statutory enactments. 

Q. Is it not at once repugnant to religion and to common sense, that the church of Christ 
should be thus subjected to the arbitrary will, or caprice, of a legislative assembly, com- 
posed of Protestants and Papists, of Christians and libertines, of sincere believers and 
scoffing infidels, and in which the enemies of religion so greatly outnumber her friends? 
A. Yes; and every upright Christian should bear testimony against such enormity. 

Q. What is the fourth ground of dissent of Reformed Presbyterians in Britain from the 

British constitution? 

A. The support that has been extended by the state to the church, however munificent, has 

been so managed that the cause of true religion has been more injured than promoted by 

it. 

Q. How is this charge sustained? 

A. It is sustained, 1 . By the fact that this support has been lavished most abundantly on 
those Protestant churches which have been most inefficient and corrupt: and even in them 
it has been employed to pamper luxury and gratify ambition, while a large portion of 
those ministers by whom pastoral duties were actually performed, have been left to 
struggle with poverty, and multitudes of the people to perish through lack of knowledge. 
2. It has invariably been used as an instrument for reducing the church into a condition of 
political subserviency. The revenues of the church have been dealt with as a spoil, which 
civil rulers have distributed among their political partisans and supporters. They have 
been employed to sustain a lordly aristocracy, rather than to feed the people with the 
bread of life. They have largely contributed to silence the voice of faithful remonstrance, 



which it is the duty of the church to raise against the iniquitous measures of public men, 
and to influence the clergy to inculcate upon the people lessons of indiscriminate and 
slavish submission, whatever aggressions have been made upon their liberties-civil or 
religious. 3. The mode of levying the revenues of the church, both in England and 
Ireland, has been unhappily calculated to excite odium against her and her ministers, and 
to call into exercise a class of passions exceedingly unfavourable to the progress of the 
gospel. 4. The principle upon which that bounty has been bestowed upon the churches is 
essentially corrupt and vicious. In all the measures of government respecting the church, 
we have searched in vain for any higher principle than political expediency as the prime 
mover. It is impossible to believe that an enlightened regard to the authority of God, a 
discriminating love of divine truth, an earnest desire for the promotion of true religion, 
can dispose a government to patronize every system of religion-be it true or false. Yet it 
does not appear that the British government, since the Revolution, have ever withheld its 
fostering care from any religious system, merely on the ground of its falsehood. 
Presbyterianism is conceded to the inclinations of the people in Scotland ; Episcopacy, 
more in favour with men in power, is established in England and Ireland, and more richly 
endowed than any church in Europe. But when a wretched expediency seems to require 
it, Popery is taken under the fostering care of government in the Ionian Isles ; its corrupt- 
ing seminary at Maynooth magnificently endowed; successive companies of its priests 
directly supported from the public treasury, sent out to propagate its destructive errors in 
the British colonies, and it is honoured with a legal establishment in Lower Canada! Nor 
is the climax of inconsistency and iniquity complete, until the functionaries of a 
Protestant government are degraded into tax-gatherers for the wooden gods of Hindostan, 
and the priests of a debasing and bloody superstition! 

Q. Which is the fifth ground of their dissent? 

A. In the domestic policy of these nations, there are many things which awaken regret 
and merit reprehension. While millions have been expended in destructive wars, the 
education of the people has been neglected. Until a very recent period, this has been 
lamentably the case both in England and Ireland. An irreligious government, and an 
ambitious and pampered church, have looked on with equal apathy, while successive 
generations have grown up in the grossest ignorance. In England a revenue has been 
expended annually on cathredrals and on the swarms of idle ecclesiastics that, are 
attached to them, which, under judicious management, might have secured the education 
of all the poor in that kingdom. From the extensive prevalence of ignorance has arisen a 
most frightful growth of infidelity and of crime. How little has been done to check the 
alarming progress of the national sin of Sabbath profanation? With this may be joined the 
apparent apathy with which government has contemplated, from age to age, the dreadful 
ravages of intemperance. The views we have adopted of the office and duty of witnesses, 
imperatively called for-these remarks. 

Q. What is the general summary which these witnesses give of the reasons of their dissent 
from the British constitution? . 

A. They remark: The guilt and danger of holding-fellowship with the principles, or the 
policy of the Antichristian system-with the head or the horns of the beast-are represented 
in Scripture as of such magnitude, that no temporal loss nor suffering can counterbalance 



them. (Rev. xvii. 3, 12, 13.) Under these impressions, we cannot proclaim attachment, 
nor vow allegiance to institutions which many good men extol and admire:-l s . Because, 
in viewing them by the light of scripture, we believe them to be immoral. 2 n . Because we 
hold them to be Antichristian. 3 . Because they were erected on the ruins of a more 
excellent system, both in church and state, and in opposition to those solemn vows, by 
which these nations were pledged to preserve that system inviolate. 4 . Because the 
immoralities of existing institutions were originally introduced, and are still upheld, in 
opposition to the clearest light of revelation with which any people were ever favoured. 

Q. In what manner do these witnesses illustrate practically their dissent? 

A. This explanation of our sentiments, say they, will supply the reason why we do not 
adopt those forms of prayer for the government of these lands, which are publicly pre- 
scribed, or commonly used throughout the churches. We fully recognise the obligation 
that lies on us, to pray for the peace and prosperity of the land that sustains, and for the 
temporal and spiritual welfare of all classes of its inhabitants. Towards the persons of the 
rulers we cherish no feeling but that of unfeigned good will. Our heart's desire and prayer 
to God for them is that they may be saved. But we cannot warrantably employ forms of 
prayer that would even seem to express approbation of institutions which we believe to 
be essentially defective and immoral. We cannot pray for the stability of a system which, 
as long as it is unreformed, is dishonouring to Christ, and an impediment to the coming of 
his kingdom. The same reasons are still more cogent to forbid our being incorporated or 
united with the state, so as to become accomplices in, or morally responsible for, its 
iniquitous public policy. Such as are in ecclesiastical fellowship with us, cannot, without 
a breach of their testimony, hold fellowship with the civil' government, by composing a 
part of the legislature, or by taking those oaths, for the maintenance and defence of the 
complex constitution, which are required of members of Parliament and others filling 
public offices, both in church and state. And as the members of our church cannot sit in 
Parliament themselves, neither can they, consistently, sit there by their representatives, or 
commission others to do for them what it would be unwarrantable and immoral for them 
to do in their own persons. Neither can they compose a part of the executive government, 
by holding offices under the crown, civil or military, which might require them to co- 
operate in carrying into practice any branch of an unscriptural code of law. Yet we do not 
feel debarred from doing what may be in our power, as private individuals, for 
strengthening those wholesome laws which are necessary for the security of life and 
property, or for promoting the administration of justice, when permitted to do so without 
being identified with a corrupt constitution. Should these principles -subject us to the 
charge of uncharitableness or want of patriotism, we would study to confute the charge 
by the blamelessness of our deportment, and by a life of active benevolence. 



CONCLUSION. 

Q. Will not Christ's mediatorial dominion cease "when he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom (1 Cor. xv. 24, 27, 28) to God, even the Father," when he shall have judged the 
world at the last day? 
A. The passage referred to relates to the account which the Mediatorial King shall render 



to the Father of his administration of the kingdom of providence with which he had been 
invested-but his mediatorial dominion shall not then cease, but he shall continue for ever 
to rule as Mediator-as the Father's delegated king, because only in his character of 
Mediator can the SON (the Father's equal, essentially, in power and glory) " be subject 
unto the Father. " As the Father's Mediatorial servant, therefore, he shall reign over the 
kingdom of heaven for evermore in fellowship with his saints-for " if we suffer with him, 
WE SHALL RFIGN WITH HIM." 

Q. How do you prove that his Mediatorial dominion will be perpetual or eternal? 
A. That his Mediatorial dominion is ETERNAL is proved by many arguments, of which 
we advance but two. 1. Scripture declarations. Dan. vii., "His dominion (the Son of 
Man's-Chnst's) is AN EVERLASTING dominion, which SHALL NOT PASS AWAY, 
and his kingdom that which SHALL NOT BE DESTROYED." Luke 1. 33, "HE SHALL 
REIGN OVFR THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOR EVER, AND OF HIS KINGDOM 
THERE SHALL BE NO END." 2 Peter i. 11, "An entrance shall be ministered to you 
abundantly UNTO THE EVERLASTING KINGDOM of our Lord and Saviour JESUS 
CHRIST." 2. His title KING OF GLORY. This title belongs to Christ, for he is called, 1 
Cor. n. 8, "THE LORD OF GLORY, who was CRUCIFIED" James n. 1, "Have not the 
faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the LORD OF GLORY, with respect of persons." To him 
then applies the sublime title employed in a psalm which celebrates his ascension-THE 
KINO OF GLORY. He who reigns over the state of heavenly felicity, as the regulator 
and dispenser of the joys of celestial bliss FOR EVER AND FOR EVER. Myriads of 
angelic - heralds, as they demand admission for him within the portals of the celestial 
palace, shout, "Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and 
the King of glory shall come in". And when the question is propounded, "Who is this 
King of glory?" they meet it with the unhesitating response, "The Lord of Hosts, HE IS 
THE KING OF GLORY". Psa. xxiv. 7-10.